Texaco Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Texaco Inc . ( Evansville , Indiana Bulk Station) and
Chauffeurs , Teamsters & Helpers Local Union
215, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America . Case 25-CA-3163
September 17, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAG ORIA
On February 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Anne F.
Schlczinger issued her Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended that
these allegations he dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs, the General Counsel filed a reply
brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified herein
1. We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, and
in agreement with the Respondent. that the June 4.
1968,' speech of David Martin, supervisor of
Employee Relations and Training for the
Respondent's Sales Department, to the assembled
employees amounted to no more than an expression
of views and opinions as to the advantages and
disadvantages of union representation' and did not
contain any threats of loss. We therefore find that
the speech was within the protection of Section 8(c)
of the Act and did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.'
2. We take however a much more serious view of
Martin's conduct after he had concluded his speech
on June 4, and his conduct on June 6, when he
reassembled the employees for a further discussion
'All dates hereinafter are in 1968
'Howmet Corporation . Austenal Microcast Division, 171 NLRB No V3
'Member Brown, for the reasons set forth in the Trial Examiner's
of their grievances. While we have indicated that his
earlier remarks found protection as being within the
free speech purview of the Act, his subsequent
solicitation of employee grievances can no longer be
said to fall within the protection of Section 8(c). We
note that Martin came to Evansville for the first
time to talk to the employees only three working
days after he had been advised by Respondent's
Supervisor of Employee Relations at its St. Louis
division about the filing of a petition by the
Evansville employees. After concluding his speech
on June 4, Martin invited the employees to present
their grievances directly to the Respondent and to
discuss them with him. In so doing Martin made
clear that he was contemplating bargaining for he
stated to the employees that "these matters will
have to conic out whether you're union or not
union ." To that extent his invitation was not an
expression of a simple curiosity as to what in the
employees' working conditions disturbed them to the
point where they desired to have union
representation. I-or it is also clear that he went
beyond merely ascertaining the nature of their
grievances, but explored with them the means of
satisfying then, to a large extent he did just that.
Thus, matters such as paying overdue repair bills,
repairing or replacing unsafe equipment, and paying
employees for past and current meal allowances,
about which employees had complained for years,
were in a matter of 2 days adjusted to the apparent
satisfaction of the employees. It is significant that
shortly' thereafter all seven employees who had met
with Martin and who had previously signed Union
cards sent a letter of withdrawal to the Union The
delays in remedying the matters involved in various
complaints could hardly be considered as merely an
oversight in implementing existing company policies,
in view of the fact that solicitation and resolution of
the complaints followed quickly upon the employees'
indication of interest in unionization and the
Respondent's expression of its strong opposition to
union organization. In our view. the employees
could only look upon the Respondent's actions as an
effort by the Respondent to discourage their union
activities and to invite direct dealing with the
Respondent. In conclusion, there can be no doubt
that the purpose of the two "gripe sessions." which
were initiated by management, was to undermine the
Union by determining what was motivating the
employees' organizational efforts, and by impliedly
promising that the grievances would be resolved.
Solicitation of grievances for such purposes is in
itself a violation of Section 8(a)(1)' as was
Respondent's discussion and adjustment thereof We
therefore agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent by such conduct violated Section 8(a)( I)
of the Act.
Decision would find that Martin's June 4 speech was violative of Sec.
8(a)(1)
'Eagle-Picher Industries , Inc , Llectronics Division , Precision Products
Department , 171 NLRB No 44
178 NLRB No. 72
TEXACO INC. 43 5
3. The complaint alleged that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to
bargain with the Union as the lawful representatik e
of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate
unit. The Trial Examiner found otherwise, but we
do not agree with her. The critical facts in brief,
about which there is no substantial dispute, show
that in its letter to the Respondent requesting
recognition, and in its petition seeking a
representation election, which was filed on the same
date as the letter, May 27, the Union described the
unit which it sought to represent as: "All drivers
and warehousemen at Owensboro, Ky. and
Evansville Indiana establishments" excluding "all
others, all guards, professional employees, office
clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in
the Act." In the petition the Union stated the
number of employees in the proposed unit was
seven. At Owensboro, Kentucky, the Respondent
pays a consignee who displays the Texaco
trademark and sells Texaco products, for the
convenience of keeping a truck and certain products
at his premises in Owensboro, because it is a
terminal point for distribution of Respondent's
products. Two of the Respondent's drivers work
out of that location. It appears that Respondent's
supervisor Smith in charge of the Evansville
operation goes to Owensboro only three or four
times a month and that the drivers based at
Owensboro come to Evansville infrequently.
However, it is agreed that the drivers based at
Owensboro are on the Evansville payroll, handle the
same products, and have the same wage rates, fringe
benefits, uniforms and supervision as the five
Evansville employees.
The Union's letter and petition were received by
Smith and forwarded to the St. Louis office and
then sent on to the Respondent's legal department in
New York. Respondent's counsel Mitchell, allegedly
concerned that the description of the proposed unit
might be read as including employees of the
consignee at Owensboro, discussed the matter with
the Board's Regional Office and also discussed
entering into a consent election agreement.
Ultimately, the parties agreed to eliminate the
reference to an Owensboro "establishment" and to
describe the unit as including: "All truck operators
and warehousemen of the Employer operating out of
its Evansville, Indiana Bulk Station" excluding `'all
office clerical employees, and all professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act." At no time, however, did the Respondent
contend that the Respondent's employees based in
Owensboro were not part of the proposed unit, nor
does it appear that the Union ever sought to
represent the consignee's employees. The Union's
May 27 request for recognition was never answered
by the Respondent.
On these facts the Trial Examiner found that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the U nion. because
the Union had failed to define the unit with "clarity
and precision" and the Respondent had a good-faith
doubt as to the proposed unit. The Trial Examiner
further found that the unfair labor practices
committed by the Respondent were not sufficient to
establish the Respondent's bad faith and vitiate the
claim that its failure to recognize the Union was
lawfully motivated.
For one thing we can see no element of
inappropriateness in the unit set forth in the Union's
letter requesting recognition and bargaining. The
Union's letter referred to "your" employees and the
Union's petition stated the number of employees in
the unit it sought to represent as seven. The Union
did not claim to represent the consignee's employees
and there is no eN idence to the contrary. The fact
that Respondent's counsel professed to see a
possible flaw in the unit as described by the Union,
and the fact that the Union agreed to change the
description, did not thereby make the Union's
original proposed unit inappropriate. In the
circumstances we cannot accept the Trial
Examiner's finding that the Union's failure to make
another demand after the unit had been "clarified"
exonerated the Respondent from its obligation to
recognize the Union.
It is now established that serious illegal activity
accompanying an employer's refusal to grant
recognition and to bargain with the majority
representative of its employees destroys the
necessary conditions for the holding of a free and
lair election.` Here, the Respondent, upon learning
of the Union's petition and letter. immediately
dispatched one of its top executives, Martin, to
speak to the employees and to urge them to vote
against the Union. Martin not only initiated
meetings at which he solicited the employees'
complaints, but he also promised and took
corrective action thereon, and gave the employees
his name and New York address as assurance of
future adjustments of grievances. Conditions about
which the employees had complained for years were
changed only after employee complaints were
elicited by the Respondent at the same time it was
urging the employees to vote nonunion . We can
conceive of no conduct which is more calculated to
undermine the Union and dissipate its majority than
where the employer, as here, solicits and adjusts
employees' grievances and engages in collective
bargaining with them while conducting a campaign
against unionization , particularly where as here the
Respondent's efforts were successful.
We cannot assume in the face of Respondent's
misconduct, that if we were to issue our customary
cease-and-desist order and direct an election. the
pervasive effect of that misconduct would be erased
and the employees would be able to express their
true sentiments in respect to the selection of a
bargaining agent. In the circumstances of this case
'N L R B v GLvsel Packing Co . Inc. 395 U S 575
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we have no reason to believe that the authorization
cards signed by all seven employees did not reflect
their true desires for representation by the Union.'
We think that on balance it is more appropriate to
protect these employees' statutory rights and
interests by directing the Respondent to recognize
and bargain with their designated representative
than to direct an election.
In view of the foregoing and on the record as a
whole, we find that by refusing to recognize and
bargain with the Union, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and that the
policies of the Act will be effectuated by the
imposition of a bargaining order as a remedy for
such conduct.
THE REMEDY
We have found in agreement with the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and
accordingly we adopt her remedial recommendations
in that regard. However, we have found, contrary to
the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We therefore
order that the Respondent 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 record as a whole, we make the
following:
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to bargain collectively with
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit composed of "all truck operators and
warehousemen of the Respondent operating out of
its Evansville, Indiana Bulk Station,' excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act," the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
'Member Zagoria adopts the Trial Examiner ' s finding as to the validity
of the authorization cards obtained from employees Blackburn,
Kirkpatrick , and Halden Garrett , in the absence of exceptions In any
event, the Union's majority is unaffected
'As set forth above, the record shows that the parties understand and
have agreed that the unit as thus described includes the Respondent's
employees based at Owensboro , Kentucky
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Texaco Inc. (Evansville, Indiana, Bulk Station),
Evansville, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit composed of "all truck operators and
warehousemen of the Respondent operating out of
its Evansville, Indiana Bulk Station, excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(h) Promising and granting benefits, and soliciting
the presentation of grievances and adjusting such
grievances, to discourage its employees' designation
of a union representative.
(c) Interrogating employees in a manner which
constitutes interference in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with
the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request. recognize and bargain
collectively with Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers
Local Union 215, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached
embody such understanding in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its place of business in Evansville.
Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 25,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and he maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
'in the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order '
TEXACO INC.
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS'FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by
Respondent's June 4 speech.
MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting in part.
I agree with Member Fanning, for the reasons set
forth in the majority opinion, that supervisor
Martin's speech of June 4, 1968, was protected by
Section 8(c) of the Act. However, I disagree with
my colleagues' conclusion that the Respondent's
unfair labor practices were of sufficient gravity to
justify a bargaining order. The Respondent's sole
infraction of the law was to inquire into its
employees' grievances, and, in several minor
respects. to satisfy them In my view, the effects of
these unfair labor practices can readily be dissipated
by our usual cease and desist order, and the posting
of a remedial notice. I therefore would adopt the'
recommendation of the Trial Examiner that the
8(a)(3) allegation be dismissed, and dissent from the
contrary finding of my brethren.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILT on request recognize and bargain with
Chauffeurs. Teamsters, & Helpers Local Union 215.
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in a unit composed of all truck operators
and warehousemen operating out of our Evansville.
Indiana, Bulk Station, but excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the aforesaid Act, regarding
their rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached embody the same into a
signed contract.
WE WILL NOT promise and grant benefits, or solicit
grievances and adjust such grievances, to discourage our
employees' designation of a union representative
WE WILL NOT, interrogate our employees in a manner
which constitutes interference in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended
Dated By
TEXACO I.C. (EVAN SvILIE,
INDIAN A BULK STATiON)
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered. defaced,
437
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 614 ESTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana
46204. Telephone 317-633-8921.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
ANNE F. SCH LEZINGER. Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on June 17, 1968, by Chauffeurs, Teamsters &
Helpers Local Union 215, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, referred to herein as the Union, the Regional
Director for Region 25 (Indianapolis, Indiana) issued a
complaint on September 6, 1968, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. In its duly filed answer, the Respondent
admitted certain allegations of' the complaint but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on
November 12 and 13. 1968, in Evansville, Indiana. All
parties were represented and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses. The General Counsel and the
Respondent have filed briefs which I have fully
considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THL RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, maintains its
principal office and place of business at Houston, Texas.
It operates facilities throughout the United States,
including the facility and bulk station at Evansville,
Indiana, here involved, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of petroleum products.
During the past year, the Respondent purchased.
transferred, and delivered to its Evansville facility goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were
transported to said facility directly from States other than
Indiana, and it sold and distributed at said facility
products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped
from said facility directly to States other than Indiana. I
find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE I ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent in its answer admits. and I find, that
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
III THE LNFAIR TABOR PRACTICES
The issues herein arc (A) whether the Respondent
engaged in conduct which interfered with, restrained. and
'the General Counsel's motion to file a reply brief, received January 30,
1969, is hereby denied J E Cole, 101 NLRB 1486
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, and (B) refused to bargain with the Union since on
or about May 28, 1968, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act
A. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1 Martin's June 4 speech
On May 27, 1968. the Union sent the Respondent a
letter requesting recognition, and also filed a petition for
an election A hearing on the petition was scheduled to be
held on June 14 ' On June 4, David Martin, who for a
number of years has been in charge of labor relations for
the Respondent's sales department, came from his New
York office to Evansville to make a speech to the
employees. This was Martin's first visit to Evansville. He
was accompanied by Robert Morgan, supervisor of
employee relations of the Respondent's St. Louis Division,
which includes the Evansville operation; Marvin Dimond,
sales supervisor of the St Louis Division, Paul Garrett,
sales manager of the Evansville District, and Paul Smith,
who is in charge of the Evansville operation. Martin
testified that it was his practice to make such a speech at
any operation of the Respondent where an election was
pending,' and that he had made this type of speech about
20 times. He did not have a prepared text but spoke from
notes he uses on such occasions. The following summary
and excerpts are based upon Martin's testimony.
Martin began by telling the employees that he was
there to ask them to vote nonunion should there he an
election, but that he was not going to promise any benefits
or make any threats to induce them to do so, and that the
Respondent would bargain in good faith if the employees
voted for the Union He stated that the Respondent's
policy as to wages and fringe benefits was to maintain
rates in line with competitors in the area: that it did so
whether the operation in question was union or nonunion:
that unions and employees had tried unsuccessfully to
have this policy changed: and that when employees at
Louisville, Kentucky, for example, asked for the same
wage rates being paid in Cincinnati, Ohio, which were
SIO-15 higher, they were refused on the ground they were
competing against companies in the Louisville, not the
Cincinnati, area. Martin also pointed out that, at every
installation of the Respondent which was represented by
the Union, the Union had accepted the Respondent's
employee benefit plans as more desirable than its own
plans, and that, if the employees would check the Work
Policies and Practices' which the Respondent has put into
effect at Evansville, they would find they had as good
conditions as those in any union-negotiated labor
agreement.
'Case 25-RC-3801 The hearing was postponed indefinitely
'Martin denied telling the employees he was making the speech because
"the employees were in the union,' and testilied that "I had no idea if
any body belonged'
'The Respondent has adopted written Work Policies and Practices at its
nonunion terminals Those for Evansville are set forth in a document dated
August 26, 1966 , signed by Division Sales Manager Gunnels , and were
reviewed by -Martin before adoption Gunnels is responsible for
implementing the Work Policies at Evansville but his work covers many
States Therefore , according to Martin , Morgan would "probably handle
employee relations matters in behalf of the Division Sales Manager' and
so would be the one implementing the Evansville Work Policies Although
Morgan is under Martin' s "outline direction ,' he makes no reports to
Martin went on to state that an employee will be
discharged only for dust cause whether the Respondent is
operating under a labor agreement or Work Policies. that
a union cannot prevent an employer from laying off
employees if there is a lack of work. and that the best
security employees can have is the security that they
generate for themselves and that the employer generates
through investments.
Martin also stated that as far as he knew the
Respondent has never removed, disciplined, or warned a
supervisor "in any way merely because of a union
complaint." He continued: "However, that did not mean
that we did not want good relationship between our
supervisors and our employees. we did. But most certainly
this was an area that only we could do anything of
material benefit to them about should there be problems
with local supervisors." Martin stated further that, when
employees elect a union representative, the Respondent
must deal with a third party and "we cannot any longer
deal with them on an individual basis . . 1 also spoke of
the fact that they lose their individual freedom which is
related to this third party thing. But as I told them, 'I
think this freedom is something you should not give up
easily.' "Martin further commented that -generally we do
have poorer relations in union terminals than non-union
terminals, and I think it's mainly because we're not
dealing with our employees any longer, w'e're dealing
through a third party "
Martin, who estimated that the speech took more than
an hour, also talked at some length about " union
power," which he referred to as "something I speak of in
each and every talk 1 make." lie stated in this reward that
a union can first seek to bargain, but an employer may
turn down any union proposal as long as it is acting in
good faith. He stated further that the only other avenue
available to a union is a threat of a strike or an actual
strike, and that "the strike action represented the union
power." He then went on to give as an example of union
power the United Automobile Workers which "to my
knowledge represents all of the production employees at
Ford Motor Company. Now, assume that they strike Ford
Motor Company. There we have an example of a large
company being without any production, and we have a
large group of men being without income, so you
essentially have two gigantic forces working against each
other " He went on to contrast this situation with the
one at Evansville. As Martin testified, "1 asked it in the
form of a question. 'Would you seven employees striking
a $6.000,000,000.00 corporation have the same power that
the United Auto Workers have when they strike Ford'?
After all, there would be another 30,000 or more
employees working, and worldwide we have 70 or 80
thousand employees. So you answer for yourself', you're
the one that has to make the decision. Would you have
real power it you went out on strike9',"`
Martin proceeded to discuss what would occur it the
Evansville employees did go on strike He stated that- the
Respondent "has every legal right to try and operate, and
try and operate we will We always try to operate during
a strike. We have more than a sufficient number of
supervisors fully qualified, fully licensed to drive the two
Martin as to how he implements the Work Policies It is clear, in any
event, that some provisions in the Work Policies had not been
implemented, and that, although employees were given a copy when hired,
they were unaware of some of the provisions
'Martin testified that the Respondent has about 2W terminals of the
same nature as Evansville
TEXACO INC. 439
trucks that are attached to the Evansville. Indiana bulk
station, and we believe that we can deliver to our
customers ." He then asked whether these employees
thought, it it were assumed that the Respondent could not
continue to operate during a strike . they would be
"exerting sufficient power on Texaco to make it do
something against its will." and stated that "in my own
judgment I question seriously if we would even miss you "
Martin stated further that it the Evansville employees
were to talk to those at the Respondent ' s Lawrenceville.
Illinois, refinery , and Mount Vernon, Indiana, pipeline
terminal, they would find that those employees "think
they have all kind of power . but really if they knew the
full truth they have very very little power Texaco doesn't
worry too much about Lawrenceville , certainly not about
Mount Vernon .. " He continued that if any operation in
the United States had sufficient power to put pressure on
the Respondent , it would he the Port Arthur works, which
is its largest refinery as well as the "manufacturing center
for every drop of base oil stock for the making of lithe
oils and greases that we have in the United States." Ile
then pointed out that even at Port Arthur , when there was
a 10-day strike in January , the plant was up to 80 percent
production at the end of the 10 days as a result of the
operations of supervisory personnel.
According to Martin, he then started to sum up "the
various reasons why we as a company were inclined to
believe that they lost through belonging to a union . All
we could point out were the things we thought they might
lose . and I listed six or eight of them " He pointed
out, through figures set forth on a blackboard , that if the
Mount Vernon terminal had been unionized for 25 years
and "pay so much dues how many thousands upon
thousands of dollars that the boys at the Mount Vernon
terminal have spent, " and nevertheless the Evansville
employees have several benefits those at Mount Vernon
do not, including the fact that those at Evansville "do not
have the one-day waiting period to obtain A & S benefits,
sick pay. they can get an excused absence with pay "
Another item of loss Martin pointed out was "the fact
that they lose their individual freedom which is related to
this third party thing "
Martin continued , "Another item , I say, 'Now, there's
a possibility that some day you might have to go out on
strike . no man should belong to the union unless he's
willing to support his union and strike when they
recommend that he strike , because otherwise if you're not
willing to strike you give your union no power. So
there's the chance of loss of wages from strike."'
Martin described, as an example of losses unionization
could cause , what occurred at the Redwood City,
California, operation , which was organized by the Union.
There, Martin stated , after months of bargaining and an
II-day strike, "they ended up with their 4% increase
which was granted nationwide to all employees on
February Ist rather than January 151 , so they lost a
month of their increase . So we ended up with a
contract that didn't even have a meal allowance in it, and
we have such meal allowance in every non-union
installation in the country . and I think in practically every
union installation "6
After pointing out that "Texaco is a big mammoth
company and it can take care of itself," and that the
"Teamsters is a large union organization and they can
'There are provisions in the Evansville Work Policies and Practices for
meal allowance payments after empioyccS work certain amounts of
overtime
take care of themselves," Martin urged the employees to
'. ote if an election were held, and concluded that the one
thing he wanted to impress upon them was "when you go
in there to vote you vote for what's in your own best
selfish interest "
2 Martin's meeting with the employees on June 4
After Martin completed his speech. he dismissed the
management representatives, explaining to the employees
that this would "make it simpler for them to at least
advise us of what was on their minds," and that ''these
matters will have to come out whether you're union or not
union." For the following hour or so the employees
proceeded to raise a number of matters. as to some of
which Martin said they were "emotionally upset," one
employee charging that the Respondent had made a
mockery of safety Some of the matters raised by the
employees involved (1) reports they heard that Dimond
was going to change work schedules without discussion
with the men, which was contrary to the Work Policies
and Practices, (2) rumors that Dimond was going to
change other employment conditions, and would discharge
"the whole hunch" if they did not conform; (3)
disparaging remarks about the employees made by
Dimond's predecessor, Agnew. (4) indications that the
drivers and the warehouseman had to buy a new type of
uniform and were forbidden to wear cowboy boots; (5) the
Respondent's failure to pay certain repair bills, with the
result that some local garages refused to work on the
trucks, which caused embarrassment as well as
inconvenience;' (6) the unsafe condition of some of the
equipment, and (7) the question whether employees who
performed overtime work were entitled to meal
allowances, which they had not been receiving. Martin
answered some of the questions but deferred answers to
most of them pending investigation.
3. Martin's June 6 meeting
Martin had the employees summoned to another
meeting on June 6. He told them he would answer some
of the questions raised at the previous meeting, but would
like to have the supervisors present to explain certain
matters With the employees' permission, he then invited
the supervisory personnel to attend. In the course of this
meeting, Martin or the supervisors answered many of the
questions raised by the employees on June 4 " Among
other things, they (I) explained that Dimond had no
intention of changing work schedules without consulting
the employees, who had misinterpreted questions that
Dimond, appointed to his position only about a month
earlier, had asked about the schedules; (2) asserted that no
employee would be discharged except for good cause, (3)
apologized for Agnew's disparaging remarks: (4) stated
that the Respondent required certain types of uniforms for
truckdrivers as it paid part of their cost, but not for the
warehouseman who furnished his own attire, and that any
type of hoots or shoes could be worn provided they
presented no safety problem; (6) explained that failure to
pay the bills had been due to an oversight, and that this
would be remedied prornptl', (7) discussed in detail the
complaints about the unsafe condition of some of the
equipment, explained the delays in remedying these
'The drivers are authorized to have repairs made on their trucks
'Martin did not answer all the questions that were raised For example,
with reference to a statement hs Martin that the Respondent was probably
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matters. and described the steps being taken to do so, and
(8) promised that, based on Martin's review of the
provisions in the Work Policies and Practices about meal
allowances, they would be -paid as far back as the
Respondent had records, and would thereafter be paid
currently, and. Martin added, "this has nothing to do with
unionism or non-unionism."
Martin also commented that some of the matters
disturbing the men were evidently due to a breakdown in
communications, and promised that thereafter the line of
communication would be kept open and the men would
obtain answers in a reasonable time. He wrote out his
name and New York address and gave it to the men so
they could refer to him any matters not taken care of
locally or by the division office in St Louis. The June 6
meeting lasted about an hour.
Employees had been complaining about some of the
above matters for years with no results, but action was
taken at this time. For example, the overdue hills were
paid with apologies for the delay, steps were taken to have
unsafe equipment repaired or replaced, and reimbursement
was made for the past due meal allowances covering a
period of well over a -year, and it was arranged that they
would thereafter be paid automatically'
Subsequent to the meetings of June 4 and 6, the
employees further discussed among themselves the matter
of union representation. On June 25, 1968, they sent a
letter of withdrawal to the Union signed by all seven
employees involved, all of whom had signed union cards a
month earlier
4. Findings and conclusions regarding Martin's
conduct
The complaint alleges that Martin, on June 4,
threatened that the Respondent would close the Evansville
facility it the employees supported the Union, and that
they would lose existing benefits if the Union were
successful, and, on and after June 4. offered benefits to,
and adjusted the grievances of, its employees in order to
affect their choice in an election and to induce them to
abandon the Union Martin denied categorically that he
made any threats. promised any benefits, or adjusted any
grievances,10 and the Respondent contends in its brief that
the speech was "obviously privileged within the meaning
of Section 8(c) of the Act."
It is evident that the speech was designed to impress
upon the employees the futility and danger of union
representation." Thus the speech, made by a company
official, accompanied by other management
representatives and local supervisors, pointed out that
established company policies as to wage rates and fringe
paying a higher rate of pay than any of its major competitors in
Evansville, one employee, according to Martin, said he thought a
particular competitor "was paving so-and -so ' Martin made a note of this,
or tried to rind out if it were so , but in any event he testified that he made
no reply to this on June 6
'One employee, Charles Blackburn , who has been a truckdriver for
about 3 years, received $61 50 to cover unpaid meal allowances He
testified that this was the first time he had been paid a meal allowance.
and that the ,, have since been paid currently
"Procedures for handling "complaints or grievances" are set forth in the
Work Policies and Practices At the hearing , counsel for the Respondent
objected to the General Counsel referring in his questions to the matters
raised by the employees as "grievances " or "complaints" on the ground
that these were "legal terms," but asked his own witnesses whether any
"grievances" were settled In any event , l find that the issues raised were
grievances within the terms of the complaint See Timken Roller Bearing
Companyv PvLRB . 161F2d949,955(CA 6)
benefits would not be altered as a result of unionization,
and that, rather than increasing employee benefits,
experience at other company operations demonstrated how
unionization could result in a loss of benefits it also
stressed the idea that a union's power lay in striking, that
the employees who were members would be obligated to
go out if a strike were called with the resulting loss of
wages, that it was feasible for supervisors to drive the two
trucks at this facility, and that the facility constituted so
insignificant a part in the Respondent's overall operations
that, if a strike closed it down, it would not be missed.
The speech further indicated that selection of a union
would require the Respondent to deal only with a third
party, which would mean the loss of employee individual
freedom to talk with management, and would bring about
poorer employer-employee relations.
I find, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire
record, that the speech, with its admitted emphasis on
what employees "lost through belonging to a union,"
"`contained veiled threats' that the employees would suffer
adverse economic consequences if they voted in favor of
the Union"." painted a picture of the "economic loss
inevitably resulting from the selection of the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative",, 3 and clearly
expressed the threats of poorer employer-employee
relations and loss of the "substantial benefit" of being
able to communicate personally with management if a
union were to become the bargaining representative.14 I
find that these were "threats of loss"" violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Furthermore. as described above, Martin not only
initiated meetings at which he solicited the employees'
complaints, but he also promised and took corrective
action thereon, and gave the employees his name and New
York address as assurance of future adjustments of
grievances The Respondent contends that such actions as
paying overdue bills and repairing or replacing unsafe
equipment constituted only normal business operations,
and that other changes, such as paying employees for past
and current meal allowances, were merely to carry out the
provisions of the Work Policies and Practices in effect at
Evansville. Conditions were changed, however, that had
prevailed for years, about which employees had
complained for years, and were changed only after
employee complaints were elicited by the Respondent at
the same time it was urging employees to vote nonunion I
find that the Respondent, by this conduct, made promises
and grants of benefits, and solicited and adjusted
grievances, at a time when this would have the natural
tendency to interfere with the employees' organizational
rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
It is clear that the employees were convinced, by
Martin's speech and by what transpired at the meetings
on June 4 and 6, that a vote for union representation was
not in their "own best selfish interest." Without waiting
for an election, the employees sent a letter of withdrawal
to the Union on June 25, 1968, signed by all the
"See Hicks-Ponder Company , 174 NLRB No 12, Quaker Alloy Casting
Company, 135 NLRB 805, 806
"N L R B v Gruber Mfg. Co . 382 F 2d 990 (C A 7)
" Vinvlex Corporation , 160 NLRB 1883. enfd NLRB v Vinv/ex
Corporation and Everwarm Corporation . 404 F 2d 1200 (C A 6)
"Graber Manufacturing Company, 158 NLRB 244, 247, cold per
curtain 382 F 2d 990 (C A 7)
"NLRB v The Sinclair Co. 397 F 2d 157 (C A 1)
"See American Technical Machinery Corporation , 173 NLRB No 210,
Eagle-Picher industries , Inc, 17l NLRB No 44, NLRB v The
Pembeck Oil Corporation . 404 F.2d 105 (C A. 2)
TEXACO INC. 441
employees involved, all of whom had signed Union cards.
5 Dimond's Conduct
The complaint alleges that Dimond (a) on or about
June 14. 1968, interrogated employees concerning their
own and other employees ' union membership , activities.
and desires , and (b) on or about June 7 and 23, suggested
to the employees withdraw al from the Union and aided
such withdrawal
a. Interrogation
On the night of June 13-14, 1968, Dimond handed
lialden Garrett a check for over $25 covering his past
meal allowances, and iodc with Garrett on one of his
runs. Although Garrett has been employed as a
truckdrner for 3 years, this was the first time he had a
supervisor ride with him. Garrett first testified that he did
not recall whether Dimond asked him or he volunteered
information about the Union. After his recollection was
refreshed by reading the affidavit he had given a Board
agent, however, he testified that Dimond asked him how
he was going to vote, to which he replied he did not know;
and that Dimond said he knew about the Union meeting
planned for Sunday evening and asked whether Garrett
was going to attend, to which he replied that since he had
signed a card he thought he should go. Dimond testified
that he initiated no conversation about the Union during
the ride. but that Garrett volunteered the information that
he was going to a meeting and that "if the plant became
union that he would not work for us any longer.-
I credit Garrett's testimony based on his refreshed
recollection. which was presented in a manner I found
more convincing than Dtmond's version Furthermore,
while Garrett testified that he would vote against the
Union even though he had signed a card, he gave no
indication that he would quit his job if the Union were
successful, and I find incredible Dimond's testimony that
Garrett so stated I find, therefore, on the basis of all the
relevant evidence, that the Respondent, by Dimond's
interrogation of Garrett. violated Section 8(a)(I) of the
Act."
h. Alleged suggestion of and assistance in withdrawal
from Union
Dimond testified that lie was at Evansville on June 7;
that employee Edminson, after commenting on how much
he had enjoyed Martin's speech, told Dimond he did not
believe a union was needed and he wished he knew how to
get out of the Union, and asked if Dimond knew of a way
he could withdraw, and that Dimond replied that he
assumed Edminson could write a letter and withdraw as
from any other organization but it was a decision
Edminson had to make Edminson testified in this regard
that he asked Dimond whether the men had to write
individual letters or could write one letter, and Dimond
replied that he thought it would be advisable to write one
letter and have everyone sign it.
Dimond also testified that at the close of the company
picnic on June 25. 1968, Blackburn asked him how the
"Clark Printing Company inc . 146 NLRB 121
1 find no support in the record , howesLr, for the allegations in the
complaint that Dimond interrogated other employees, or that he
interrogated employees concerning "other employees' Union membership,
activities , and desires "
men could get out of the Union without an election, and
he again replied that he assumed they could write a letter
and withdraw as they would from any organization, but he
did not know, and it was a choice the employees had to
make Blackburn testified that the men had discussed
withdrawing from the Union and asked him at the picnic
to talk to Dimond, that he asked Dimond for his views on
writing a letter of withdrawal and whether it would speed
matters up, and that Dimond said that he thought the
letter might do the job and would speed matters up
Blackburn prepared the letter of withdrawal dated June
25, 1968, which, after being signed by all seven employees.
was sent to the Union No copy was sent to the
Respondent.
I Lind no violation of the Act in Dimond's replies to the
inquiries of Edminson and Blackburn, the only role he
played in connection with the withdrawal letter, and will
therefore recommend dismissal of this allegation of the
complaint
B. The Alleged Refusal To Bargain
1. The appropriate unit
Paul Smith is in direct charge of the Evansville
operation He testified that he supervises six truckdrivers
and a warehouseman; that there are two company trucks.
one based at Evansville and the other at the location of a
consignee in Owensboro , Kentucky , whom the Respondent
pays for use of his premises to park a truck and store
products because it is a terminal point, and that two of
the truekdrivers work out of Owensboro and till the truck
up there most of the time although they may also load at
Mount Vernon, Indiana, where the Evansville truck loads
Smith goes to Owensboro three or four times a month:
the men based at Owensboro come to Evansville
infrequently . They are, however , on the Evansville payroll,
handle the same products, and have the same wage rates,
fringe benefits, uniforms and supervision as the Evansville
employees.
The consignee at Owensboro , O'Flynn, who displays the
Texaco trade mark and sells Texaco products , has seven
or eight employees , three or lour of whom are
truckdrivers 1 here are his employees , not employees of
the Respondent Other consignees sometimes call orders in
to Owensboro . The calls may be taken by one of the
Respondent 's drivers or by O'Flynn
The petition filed by the Union on May 27, 1968,
describes the unit bought as "All drivers and
warehousemen at Owensboro, Ky and Evansville Indiana
establishments" excluding "all others, all guards,
professional employees , office clerical employees and all
supervisors as defined in the Act." The Union's letter
requesting recognition, also dated May 27 and sent on
that date to Evansville , attention of Paul Smith . contained
the same unit description.
Smith forwarded the letter and a copy of the petition to
the St. Louis office , where they were apparently received
on May 31. No reply to the letter was sent to the Union.
Morgan, supervisor of employee relations of the St. Louis
division, forwarded the documents to the Respondent's
legal department in New York." Morgan discussed the
unit with Respondent ' s counsel Mitchell by telephone.
Mitchell, apparently disturbed that the description of the
"Martin had been advised by Morgan, before he came to Evansville to
make his speet .h, about the filing of a petition by the Evansville employees,
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proposed unit might be read as including employees of the
consignee at Owensboro , advised Morgan that he had
telephoned an attorney in the Board's regional office, that
they had discussed the question of the locations to be
covered by the unit, which would be straightened out, that
they had also discussed entering into a consent-election
agreement , and that Morgan would receive a document
from the Board office which he should go ahead and sign.
After Morgan received a stipulation for certification upon
consent election from the Board office . someone in that
office called and asked him to correct some mistakes on
it. Morgan testified that he assumed that the corrections
were in accord with Mitchell ' s requests so he made them,
signed the document , and returned it to the Board office.
Mitchell later called Morgan and said Morgan had
executed an incorrect document , but he would try to
obtain the agreement of the Board office and the Union to
change the unit description . On June 14. Mitchell sent the
Board office the following telegram
RE TEXACO INC (EVANSVILLE, INDIANA
BULK STATION) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 215
--- NLRB CASE 25-RC-3801 CONFIRMING
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES YESTERDAY -
STIPULATION FOR CERTIFICATION UPON
CONSENT ELECTION AGREEMENT AMENDED
TO CHANGE UNIT DESCRIPTION fO PROVIDE
"ALL TRUCK OPERATORS AND
WAREHOUSEMEN OF THE EMPLOYER
OPERATING OUT OF ITS EVANSVILLE.
INDIANA BULK STATION BUT EXCLUDING
ALL OFFICE CLERICAL EMPLOYES AND ALL
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYES, GUARDS AND
SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE ACT."
The unit description contained in the Stipulation is the
same as that in the telegram, but it contains obvious
additions and erasures , including erasure of "Owensboro.
Kentucky operation ." The Stipulation bears signatures
and initials of Morgan, an attorney for the Union, and a
Board agent . appended on various dates, and the signature
of the Regional Director approving the agreement as of
June 14, 1968."
The complaint alleges the appropriate unit to be "All
driver and warehousemen employees of Respondent
operating out of and employed at its facility," and
"facility " is identified in the complaint as the one at
Evansville 1 he Respondent ' s answer denies the
appropriateness of the unit "as written " and "avers that
the unit appropriate . . is that unit set forth in that
certain Stipulation . approved by the Regional Director
on .I une 14, 196t(
As there is no reference to Owensboro in the unit
Description in either the complaint or the Stipulation. the
unit dispute appears to have become one of semantics. I
find merit nevertheless in the Respondent ' s position All
the parties agreed, after several discussions , to the unit
described in the Stipulation , and no persuasive reason has
been advanced why that description should be altered.
Accordingly. I find the appropriate unit to be as follows
All truck operators and warehousemen of the
Respondent operating out of its Evansville , Indiana,
Bulk Station , excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act
but Martin had not at that time seen the petition and had not been told of
the Union's letter
"the Stipulation scheduled an elt,etion to be held on June 27 1968, "at
employers Evansville, Indiana establishment" It Has not held because of
the filing of the instant charges on June 17, 1968
2 The Union's majority
The seven cards here involved are headed "Application
for Membership and Authorization for Representation,"
and are all dated May 25, 1968. Halden Garrett testified
that he signed a card at the request of employees
Blackburn and Kirkpatrick; that he read the card before
he signed it, and that, while he understood there would be
an election and told the men who signed him up that he
would vote against the Union, he was not advised that
there would be an election but only that the card was an
application for membership in the Union.
Edminson testified that the employee who gave him a
card said it was for union representation and did not
mention an election, and that he. Edminson, read the
card, signed it, and returned it to the employee.
On May 25. employees Rayman, Happe, and Curtis
Garrett20 came to Blackburn's home At their request he
called employee Fitzpatrick, who joined them They read
the card and discussed some of the provisions in the
printed material, including one that stated that the signed
has no right to withdraw "during the organizational
efforts of the union." Blackburn testified that after one of
the three employees soliciting signatures said that there
was nothing binding in signing the card, that union
representative Whobrey had said there would be an
election, and that at that time the men could vote for or
against a union, he and Kirkpatrick agreed to go along
with the others and sign cards on the basis that they could
later vote on the matter.
Ragman, who has been employed by the Respondent
for over 16 years, testified that he obtained a card from
Whobrey at the Union hall: that he read it, signed it, and
returned it to Whobrey, and that Whobrey mentioned that
there would be an election but Rayman did not recall that
he said the card was for the purpose of getting an election.
Rayman identified the signatures of Happe and Curtis
Garrett, whom he saw sign cards and give them to
Whobrey, and of Kirkpatrick, whom he saw sign a card.
I find no merit in the Respondent's contentions that the
cards were invalid because they were signed only to obtain
an election or because some of the cards were identified
not by the signers but by a witness to their signing."
Accordingly, I find that the Union represented the
Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit on May
25, 1968. 1 find further that the Union's representative
status was not dissipated as a result of the withdrawal
letter of June 25. 1968, written after the Respondent
engaged in the unlawful conduct found above.22
3. The alleged refusal to bargain
As set forth above, the Union's letter requesting
recognition and its petition filed on the same date, May
27, 1968, included in the description of the proposed unit
employees at the Owensboro establishment. Martin had
not been informed of this unit description when he came
to Evansville on June 4. Respondent's labor counsel
Mitchell and other management representatives who were
advised of the unit description, however, were concerned
that it might indicate inclusion of employees of its
"Supervisor Paul Garrett and employees Halden Garrett and Curtis
Garrett arc unrelated
"Thrift Drug Company of Pennevdvania . 167 NLRB No 57, cnfd 404
1. 2d 1097 (C A 6), McEwen Manufacturing Company 172 NLRB No
99
"The Richman Brothers Company, 157 NLRB 1666, cnfd 387 F 2d 809
(C A 7)
TEXACO INC. 443
Owensboro consignee. Mitchell promptly took steps to
obtain a clarification of the unit description in this regard,
and to indicate willingness to enter into a consent election
agreement if the unit were clarified. After discussions of
the matter via long-distance telephone, agreement was
apparently reached, but, through a misunderstanding, a
representative of the Respondent signed a stipulation
which contained a unit description at variance with the
one agreed upon. The difference as to the appropriate unit
description was finally resolved about June 14 by
agreement of all the parties, and the unit description set
forth in the stipulation was revised accordingly
The General Counsel contends that the original
proposed unit was appropriate as the Respondent had
employees working out of Owensboro; that it was evident
that the Union's petition and letter had reference to
employees of the Respondent only. and that the
Respondent obviously knew which employees were being
sought as they were the ones, including those working out
of Owensboro, summoned to the June 4 and 6 meetings
The Respondent, on the other hand. maintains that it has
no Owensboro establishment, that it merely pays a
consignees for the convenience of keeping a truck and
certain products at his premises in Owensboro and having
two of its drivers work out of that location, and that the
references to an Owensboro establishment confused the
unit issue as the consignee employs truckdrivers. displays
the Texaco emblem, and sells Texaco products I find
merit in the Respondent's position It is clear-and there is
no contention to the contrary- that the Respondent had no
legal obligation to bargain for a unit including the
consignee's employees with its own employees It is
equally clear that the Union had an obligation to define
its proposed unit with reasonable clarity and precision,23
which I find it failed to do in this case. Moreover, the unit
description in the complaint, although it omitted any
reference to an Owensboro establishment, varied from the
unit description in the Stipulation. The Respondent's
good-faith doubt as to the proposed unit is demonstrated
by the clforts made by Mitchell to have the unit redefined,
24 as well as by his willingness to enter into a consent
election agreement when this was done The Union was
aware of Mitchell's efforts to have the unit clarified, and
apparently approved the stipulation setting forth the
redefined unit, but made no request for recognition in
such unit. In all the circumstances of this case. the unfair
labor practices found above are not sufficient, in my
opinion, to establish the Respondent's bad faith and
vitiate the claim that its failure to recognize the Union
was lawfully motivated " Accordingly, I lind that the
General Counsel has failed to sustain his burden of
establishing that the Respondent refused to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
I find further that the evidence does not establish the
allegation of the complaint that the Respondent, at the
June 4 and 6 meetings and on other dates, bargained
"N L R B v Lou De Young's Market Basket, 406 F 2d 17 (C A 6),
Jan I. 1969, Carlton Paper Corporation, 173 NLRB No. 26, Sportswear
Industries, Inc. 147 NLRB 755, 760, The C L Bailey Grocery Co. 10(1
NLRB 576, 579
"Cf Ben son Wholesale Grocery Co. 164 NLRB No 75, in which the
directly and individually with .its employees'! Although I
have found the conduct in question violative of the Act in
other respects. I find that it did not constitute bargaining
in violation of the Act.
IV. TILE EFI'ECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMIFRCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III.
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section 1, 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 the free flow of
commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent
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 record as a whole, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Respondent. Texaco Inc. (Evansville, Indiana
Bulk Station), is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By threatening its employees with adverse economic
consequences, poorer employer-employee relations, and
loss of freedom to communicate directly with
management, as inevitable results if they designated the
above-named labor organization as their bargaining
representative, by promising and granting benefits. and
soliciting the presentation of grievances and adjusting such
grievances, to discourage its employees' designation of a
union representative; and by interrogating an employee
about how he would vote in a Board-conducted election
and about his intention of attending a scheduled union
meeting, the Respondent has mterferred with, restrained.
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Board pointed out that if the employer was confused about the unit sought,
"a simple inquiry on that point, which good faith would seem to require,
would undoubtedly have clarified such confusion '
"See Hardv-Herpolsheimer Division of Allied Stores of Michigan, Inc ,
173 NLRB No 165, Grafton Boat Co, Inc, 173 NLRB No 150, Carlton
Paper Corporation , supra, Hammond & Irving, Incorporated , 154 NLRB
1071