The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 862 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 553, AFL Case No. 14-C-1125.-Decided November 30, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER On September 27, 1946, Trial Examiner Victor Hirshfield issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices , and reconunending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.' The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices , and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter , on November 6, 1946, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief ; on March 18, 1948, supplemental exceptions and a motion to dismiss the complaint; and on August 12, 1948, a supplemental brief.2 The Board 3 has reviewed 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 exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in the case , and finds merit in the Respondent 's exceptions . The Res- 1 The provisions of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial Examiner found were violated, are continued , without any change material to this proceeding , in Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. 2 On July 21, 1948, the Board notified the parties that it rescinded its previous action in granting the Respondent 's request for oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., and that in lieu thereof any party might file a supplemental brief within 15 days. S Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Mur- dock and Gray]. 80 N. L. R. B., No. 140. 862 THE TEXAS COMPANY 863 pondent's motion to dismiss is hereby granted for the following reasons.4 1. The Trial Examiner has found that the Respondent discharged Claude Martin on February 7, 1946, because of his union membership and activity and, as a corollary thereto, his refusal to recommend the discharge of two union men. We do not agree. The Respondent contends that Martin was discharged for unsatis- factory work during the period from late 1944 to January 1946. In support of this contention, it called as witnesses Foreman Pat Martin and Assistant Foreman Fivecoate, who testified at length regarding the alleged grounds for the discharge. The Trial Examiner, however,, has found that both Pat Martin and Fivecoate were not credible witnesses. In view of his opportunity to observe their demeanor on the stand, we shall not disturb these findings. But even though Claude Martin may not have been guilty of any derelictions of duty serious enough to warrant discharge, this fact, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish the existence of a dis- criminatory motive for his discharge; there must be substantial affirm- ative evidence from which such a motive can reasonably be inferred. The only evidence to support such an inference in Martin's case is his testimony, corroborated to some extent by that of other witnesses: (1) that he was never criticized by his supervisors until the fall of 1945, after the Respondent had learned of his union activity; (2) that thereafter the non-union men in his gang were transferred to Fivecoate's immediate supervision; (3) that the men remaining under him, all of whom were union members, were given the dirtiest and hardest assignment ; and (4) that he was finally ordered to recommend the discharge of two of these men, Byard and Davis, under penalty of losing his own job. However, this testimony is contradicted by other parts of Claude Martin's own testimony, which the Trial Examiner has failed to take into consideration. Thus, Claude Martin's testimony also shows that Fivecoate had found serious fault with his conduct on at least one occa- sion as early as April 1945, before any union activity had begun, and that some non-union men were thereafter assigned to his gang. In addition, he admitted that he had no actual knowledge of the jobs assigned to Fivecoate's non-union men, but based his conclusion, that his men were given the dirtiest and hardest assignments, merely on his general knowledge of the work in the field and what he occasionally saw the other men doing as his gang went from one part of the field * In support of its motion to dismiss , the Respondent raised various issues as to the impact of the Labor Management Relations Act upon this proceeding . In view of our disposition of the case, it is unnecessary for us to determine these issues. 864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to another. Furthermore, we find no convincing reason for inferring, as the Trial Examiner has done, that the order to recommend the dis- charge of Byard and Davis was given for anti- union reasons; on the contrary, Claude Martin conceded that the order was given in connec- tion with criticisms of the work of the men under his supervision, and shortly after Fivecoate had specifically told him that Byard and Davis were not doing their work properly. In view of these circumstances, and on the record as a whole, we are not convinced that the Respondent's reason for discharging Claude Martin was his union activity. We therefore reverse the Trial Ex- aminer's finding as to him. 2. The Trial Examiner has found that the Respondent discharged Pursley and Riggs because of their union membership rather than because of poor work, as contended by the Respondent. We do not agree. In support of the Trial Examiner's finding, it appears that Fore- man Pat Martin told Pursley, on the second day of his employment, that "any man who carries a union card cannot work for a major oil company"; that Pursley and Riggs were the only members of the group of new employees who joined the Union; that the Respondent had knowledge, at the time of the discharges, of their union mem- bership; and that no other employees were discharged for poor work. However, there is no clear showing that Pat Martin, who recom- mended the discharges, knew of Pursley's and Riggs' union member- ship at the time of making his recommendation, or that General Su- perintendent Arnold, who made the final decision with respect to them, had any anti-union bias. Furthermore, although the Trial Examiner credited a portion of the testimony of Head Roustabout Hamilton that the work of Pursley and Riggs was average, we note that Hamil- ton's testimony as a whole appears to support, rather than to disprove, the Respondent's contention that Pursley and Riggs were not satis- factory employees. Thus, although he testified that he did not think that he would have recommended their discharge if he had been con- sulted, he added that he "would have talked it over to see if they could not have been assigned to something different and given another chance before discharge." He also testified that he "did not figure that either of these men was very good on connection work" ; that Riggs did not seem to have the experience that a roustabout in oil field work ought to have; that he could not see any improvement in Riggs' work in 90 days; that he did not regard Riggs' work as "what the company would want"; and that, although he thought at first that Pursley was going to make a good hand, later "it seemed like he didn't want to take to his work like he ought to." In addition, Assistant Foreman THE TEXAS COMPANY 865 Jones, whom the Trial Examiner has not discredited, testified that he regarded Riggs as "below average" as a roustabout, and Pursley as "below average as a safe worker"; and that he did not think they were, or would develop into, satisfactory workmen. On the record as a whole, therefore, we are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish a discriminatory motive for the discharges, or to disprove the Respondent's contention that the dis- charges were because of unsatisfactory work. We therefore reverse the Trial Examiner's finding as to Pursley and Riggs. 3. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. The specific violations found by the Trial Examiner are as follows : 5 (a) That representatives of the Respondent advised certain em- ployees that they did not have to join the Union for a year, and that the G. I. Bill of Rights so provided. These statements, however, appear to have been mere expressions of opinion, non-coercive in char- acter, and therefore privileged under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. (b) That Foreman Pat Martin and Assistant Foreman Fivecoate ordered Claude Martin to recommend the discharge of employees Davis and Byard. As previously indicated, however, we consider the evi- dence insufficient to warrant a finding that this order was given for discriminatory reasons. (c) That Foreman Pat Martin endeavored, for anti-union reasons, to induce Byard and Davis to leave their employment. However, Pat Martin's remarks to Byard and Davis were made during a dis- cussion of their request for a transfer from the field service to the plant yard, and appear to have been based on their unsatisfactory work rather than their union membership. (d) That Foreman Pat Martin questioned employee Tadlock with respect to his union activity. The evidence shows, however, not that Martin questioned Tadlock, but that Martin warned him against en- gaging in solicitation, and that such warning was occasioned by Tad- lock's having been assigned to a new job. In its context, this warning appears to have been directed only against solicitation on company time, and Tadlock's own testimony shows that he so understood it. 6 The Trial Examiner has also found that these incidents, together with the three dis- charges discussed above, were part of a plan to destroy the Union at the Respondent 's plant and to coerce the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. We find no evi- dence of such a plan. On the contrary , the record shows that the Union had won a Board election before most , if not all, of these incidents occurred , and thereafter the Respondent recognized it, entered into bargaining negotiations with it, and finally signed a written agreement with it. 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) That Foreman Pat Martin endeavored to have employee Howe report pro-union activities of other employees to him, while permitting Kennedy, another non-supervisory employee, the utmost freedom in conducting anti-union activities on company time and property. How- ever, Pat Martin's request to Howe was specifically restricted to reporting solicitation "during working hours"; at the same time, the record fails to show that Pat Martin knew of Kennedy's anti-union activities. (f) That the assignment of work in the field roustabout gang after the strike was made on a discriminatory basis. However, as indicated above, we find no convincing evidence of such discrimination. For the reasons indicated, and on the record as a whole, we disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the above activities were vio- lative of Section 8 (1) of the Act." We agree with, and adopt, his recommendation that the complaint be dismissed with respect to the allegation that the Respondent attempted to discredit the Union by spreading false rumors that it was calling a strike.7 We therefore reverse the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the Respond- ent, The Texas Company, Salem, Illinois, be, and it hereby is, dis- missed. The Trial Examiner has also found that on one occasion Foreman Pat Martin told em- ployee Parsley that "any man who carries a union card cannot work for a major oil com- pany," that on another occasion he told employee Byard that "a man would get farther with the company if he were out of the Union," and that, when employee Howe applied for work with the Respondent , he was questioned by 0 H. Davis , a supervisor in charge of the plant guard force, with respect to his views about the Union. Normally, we would find such conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act . In this case, however , because the Trial Examiner has not found that this conduct was a violation of the Act, and because neither the Union nor counsel for the Board has excepted to his failure to do so , we shall make no finding that these isolated activities constituted a violation of Section 8 (1). ' No exceptions have been filed to this recommendation. THE TEXAS COMPANY INTERMEDIATE REPORT 867 Harry G. Carlson, Esq., for the Board. B. W. Griffith, Esq., and W. E. Will, Esq., both of Tulsa, Okla., for the re- spondent. Mr. John L. Matthews, of Centralia, Ill., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on July 18, 1946, by International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 553, AFL, herein called the Union, ' the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region ( St. Louis, Missouri ), issued its complaint dated July 18, 1946, against The Texas Company, Salem , Illinois , herein called the re- spondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance: ( 1) that on or about February 7, 1946, the respondent discharged Claude A. Martin, Russell E. Pursley , and Jesse R. Riggs and since that date has refused and failed to reinstate them, because they joined and assisted the Union and en- gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (2) that the respondent had, from on or about October 8 , 1915, to the date of the complaint , interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and prospective employees ' by questioning them concerning their Union membership and activity , by advising newly hired employees that they need not decide about the Union for a year from the hiring date, by warn- ing its employees against joining or assisting the Union , by ordering the dis- charge of two Union employees , by attempting to discredit the Union by spread- ing false rumors that the Union was calling a strike, by discriminating against Union employees in work assignments , and by misrepresenting to Union members that their immediate supervisors had recommended their discharge for the purpose of inducing such Union members to quit their employment , and (3) that by the said acts , the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. In its duly filed answer , the respondent , while admitting that it had discharged the employees named in the Board's complaint , denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Salem , Illinois, on July 31, 1946, to August 9, 1946, inclusive , before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board , the respondent , and the Union were represented and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bear- ' The above is the correct form of the Union's name. The change from an incorrect form in the complaint was made by the Board's attorney in an unopposed motion at the opening of the hearing. 2 The language as to this section of the complaint was amended at the hearing The orig- inal complaint alleged only that the respondent had questioned its "employees" In the man- ner indicated. 817319-49-vol. 80-56 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing on the issues, was afforded all parties. The respondent's motion for a bill of particulars made shortly after the opening of the hearing was granted in part and denied in part. At the close of the Board's case, the undersigned denied a motion by the respondent to dismiss the complaint. The respondent renewed its motion near the close of the hearing and ruling thereon was reserved. That motion is disposed of in the body of the Intermediate Report. Near the close of the hearing the undersigned granted without objection a motion by Board's counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof. After the testimony had been taken, counsel for the respondent and for the Board argued orally before the undersigned. The attorney for the Board and the respondent's attorneys have filed briefs with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from the observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Texas Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in New York City, New York. The respondent is engaged in producing, refining, transporting, and marketing petroleum and petroleum products. It owns and operates a number of oil and gas refineries in various States of the United States, including the gasoline plant at Salem, Illinois.' Raw materials in ex- cess of $200,000 in value, consisting chiefly of casing head gas, are purchased annually for the Salem, Illinois, plant, all of which gas is purchased within the State of Illinois. Products valued in excess of $1,000,000, are sold and trans- ported annually from the Salem, Illinois, gasoline plant, of which products approximately 25 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon a stipulation to that effect entered into by the parties, the undersigned finds that the respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 553, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the discriminatory discharges 1. Background a. The plant and its operation The Salem plant is operated by the respondent for the purpose of processing the raw gas in the oil field which surrounds it. This field is roughly 20 square miles in area, and is divided into more than 100 leases upon which are located various oil wells. These oil wells are connected by some 200 miles of pipe lines with the plant. The pipe lines are used for carrying the gas from the field into the plant. Other, and completely different pipe lines are used to carry the 3 The incident bearing on the issues involved herein occurred In, at, or about the Salem, Illinois, plant. THE TEXAS COMPANY 869 oil from the wells to central collecting points. In addition to the pipe lines which carry the gas from the field to the plant, still other pipe lines go from the plant to the field, and gas under pressure is forced through these lines back into the oil wells to repressurize them. The plant proper, which is inside a high wire fence, covers about 10 acres. It contains a number of engines, pumps , and boilers , which are used to pump the gas from the field into the processing equipment. The final products are manufactured by various methods including the heating of the components of the natural gas, after which these components are further treated to produce different finished products , which include natural gasoline , isopentane , butane, iso-butane , and propane . After these products are removed from the natural gas (which is brought into the plant under vacuum ) the residual gas is returned to the oil wells under pressure of approximately 25 pounds. The respondent employs approximately 100 persons in the plant and field operations described above. Ninety-one of these employees are non -supervisory and 33 of these are engaged in various operations connected with operating the plant proper . In addition there are 43 employees who are engaged in the maintenance of the plant. Among these 43 employees are categories which include roustabouts , machinists , repairmen , instrument repairmen , truck driv- ers, welders, carpenters, and painters. There are 13 employees engaged in the maintenance of the field, and their work is particularly concerned with the upkeep of the pipe lines and the meters which are used to measure the flow of gas from the field. To sum up. there are roughly 76 non-supervisory employees within the limits of the plant fence, while 13 employees are employed in the field area, outside the plant fence. Supervising the plant and field operations is Col. H. H. Arnold Jr., the general superintendent of the respondent for its Illinois District. Under Arnold is L. K. Laney, who is the district gasoline plant superintendent. At all times material to the issues discussed herein, Patrick J . Martin' was plant foreman directly in charge of both plant and field operations under Laney. Martin had two assistants: Richard Jones , who was assistant plant foreman in charge of operations within the plant area and David Fivecoate who was the assistant foreman in charge of the field operations . E. P. Hulen was head roustabout under Jones while Claude A. Martin was head roustabout under Fivecoate. Other supervisory personnel will be identified hereinafter. b. The Union begins to organize The Union began its organizational drive at the Salem plant in May or June of 1945, and on July 27 , 1945, a Board hearing was held on its Petition for Certification.° On October 4, 1945, the Board directed the holding of an election which was conducted on October 16, 1945, and which election the Union won by a vote of 36 to 29. Negotiations between the Union and the respondent commenced shortly afterwards , and broke down on January 10 , 1943, without a contract having been signed . It was not until March of 1946 that a final agreement was reached between the parties. About 3 weeks before the election , a strike which lasted from September 24 to October 8, 1945, occurred at the Salem plant. Picket lines were formed out- * Patrick J. Martin was referred to in all the testimony simply as Pat Martin. He will be so identified herein. 5 Matter of The Texas Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 1442. 870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD side the plant fence and pickets marched on the road which runs in front of the plant. Most of the supervisors, as well as a group of non-supervisory employees, continued to work at the plant and the testimony is conclusive that the pickets were clearly visible to all those who entered or left the plant. 2. The discharge of Claude Martin Claude A. Martin was employed by the respondent on August 11, 1939. Hired as a laborer , he in turn became a roustabout, a stillman, and a meter repair man. On April 1, 1944, Martin was officially promoted to head roustabout in the field under David Fivecoate after having acted in that capacity for approximately a year. Martin's hiring wage as a laborer was 05 cents an hour. He received several wage increases thereafter so that at the time of his discharge he was earning $1.42 per hour. Martin's work as head roustabout included the supervision of a group of employees known generally as field roustabouts, who were engaged in maintain- ing and servicing the pipe lines which carried the gas to and from the oil wells. This work was varied in its nature and consisted in part of digging ditches in which the pipe lines were placed. "blowing drips." ' and making and repairing pipe connections . It is clear that the greater part of the work of the field roustabout is manual labor but some degree of skill is required partly because of the fact that the pipe lines contain gases which are highly inflammable and explosive when combined with air, and which must therefore be handled with care. Prior to the strike, referred to above, the work in the field had been supervised by David Fivecoate, assistant foreman in charge of the field. Directly under him was Claude Martin, who was in charge of the field roustabouts. It was the practice at that time for Martin to report to Fivecoate in the morning and receive from him a list of work assignments for the day. Martin would then distribute the work assignments among the 8 to 10 men in the field roustabout crew and would supervise them in the performance of these assignments. It often hap- pened that during the day Fivecoate would give Martin further instructions and Martin would then instruct his men to leave a particular job and go to another job as directed by Fivecoate. Claude Martin and five of his field roustabouts joined the Union and picketed the plant during the strike of September 24-October 8, 1945, and it is found that both Claude Martin and his fellow pickets were seen by the plant super- visory staff as they walked on the picket line. After the strike the system used by Fivecoate in distributing the work in the field was radically changed. Instead of having 8 to 10 men under his super- vision, Fivecoate now gave Claude Martin only 5 men, all of whom belonged to the Union. The other men, not members of the Union, were ordered to work 9 A drip is a tank or container approximately 12 inches in diameter and 6 feet long, some- times as large as 24 inches in diameter and 30 feet long. The drips are installed for catch- ing the condensate which falls out of the vacuum lines carrying the gas from the field to the plant. This condensate is created by the fact that a drop in temperature will cause some of the hydrocarbons in the gas to condense. Accumulation of these hydrocarbons block the gas lines unless they are removed. Drips are usually placed in low places such as ravines or valleys, so that the condensate will run down into them. The drips are emptied mainly by means of a pitcher pump, and particularly in cold weather, emptying or blowing the drips is an important pait of the field roustabout work. THE TEXAS COMPANY 871 directly under Fivecoate. Claude Martin testified that after the strike his crew given the "dirtiest" and hardest assignments 7 Shortly after the end of the strike Martin was called into Pat Martin's" office. Claude testified that Pat Martin said : "Claude, I have some complaints about your men. It seems that they are lagging and not doing the work that ought to be." Claude told Pat that in his own opinion his men were doing "awful well and working hard, and in fact" were "doing more work than" had ever been "done in the field." Pat Martin then told Claude that the complaints had originated with Fivecoate. Fivecoate, who was present, told Martin that two men, John Davis and Fred Byard,9 were not doing their work properly and he told Martin to give them the "roughest, hardest work" he had. Shortly thereafter Fivecoate again called Claude Martin into Pat Martin's office. Pat Martin told Claude that the men were still loafing and that Fivecoate was still complaining. Claude denied these charges and said that his men were working harder than ever before. At that point Pat Martin said "If you do not recommend dismissal of John Davis and Fred Byard, I will have to fire you." Claude Martin replied that he would not recommend dismissal of these men since they were the best he had. Martin testified that Pat Martin and Fivecoate told him that they had a letter drawn up and ready for him to sign recommending the dismissal of these two men. Very shortly thereafter Martin was called in again by Pat Martin and Fivecoate and was told to get rid of Davis and Byard. On this occasion Claude Martin, still refusing to discharge the men , recommended instead that they be given a trial in the Plant Yard. He then discussed the matter with Davis and Byard and told them that he had recommended their transfer as a result of the pressure of Fivecoate and Pat Martin . Shortly thereafter, both Davis and Byard were transferred to the Plant Yard. On the evening of February 7, Claude Martin was called into Pat Martin's office and was told that he was being discharged because he could not get along with the local management and with his men. The following morning Claude Martin saw Col. H. H. Arnold, Jr., the general superintendent, and was told by Arnold that he had heard about Martin's discharge and he was relying upon his foremen in going along with the decision to discharge him. Laney 10 was then called into Arnold's office. Laney told Martin that he had been accused of loafing on the job with his men and not being able to get along with local management . Martin then asked for a transfer to another job and Arnold said that he would look into the matter . Claude Martin has not since been reinstated. The respondent's defense to the charge that Claude Martin was discharged for Union activity depends, in the main, on the testimony of two witnesses, David Fivecoate and Pat Martin. Pat Martin testified that he had become plant foreman in April 1944, and that in November 1944, after checking certain production records he found that there were wide variations in the volume of gas reaching the plant.33 He testified that 7 The facts in this section of the Intermediate Report are based on the testimony of Claude Martin, John Davis, and Fred Byaid. Their testimony is credited, and the reasons therefor will be discussed in greater detail below. 8 Not to be confused with Claude Martin hereinbefore referred to. Pat Martin was, at that time, the plant foreman directly in charge of the entire operation under Laney, the district gas plant superintendent . Pat Martin has since been transferred out of the Salem operation and is presently working for the respondent in its Tulsa office. ° Both these men were union men and they had picketed with Martin during the strike. 10 Laney has been identified hereinbefore as the district gasoline plant superintendent. 11 The respondent did not produce these records at the hearing because, it alleged, they were "confidential." 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he began an investigation to determine the reason for these variations, and that be finally located the trouble in the fact that Claude Martin was not supervising his men properly."R Such improper supervision, he alleged, included the fact that Claude was permitting his men to take a 1Qnger lunch hour than the 30 minutes permitted to them. He testified that having reached the conclusion that Claude was responsible for the poor production he took the matter up with Fivecoate, Claude Martin's immediate superior, and that Fivecoate said that he himself had been aware of some slackness in the field. Fivecoate then called a meeting of the field crew at which Claude, Pat Martin and Fivecoate were also present. Fivecoate and Pat Martin told the men in substance that the respondent wag faced with a serious shortage of manpower and that it was therefore incumbent upon them to do all the work they could. Pat Martin had no serious complaints from Fivecoate about Claude Martin until late in August 1945. At that time, he testified, Fivecoate told him that he could no longer get along with Claude and that he was "fed up" with him_ Fivecoate, at about the same time, brought Claude into Pat Martin's office and told him (Claude) that his work was not good. Pat Martin testified that Claude accepted these criticisms and promised to do better. Pat Martin alleged that at a second meeting between the three men in October, Claude Martin, for the first time, requested that three men, Davis, Byard, and Scott McCoy, be removed from his supervision, because, Claude said, he was not able to get his work done with them. Pat Martin denied that he had requested Claude Martin to recommend the dismissal of two of these three men, as testified to by Claude and also denied that Claude was given a lesser number of men to supervise after the strike than before the strike. According to Pat Martin he received reports from Fivecoate in November 1945, that Claude Martin had disobeyed certain orders which had been given him, and that as a result, two potentially serious fires had occurred. In December 1945, Pat Martin alleged, he told Fivecoate that he felt that Claude Martin had been given "ample opportunity" to correct his ways, and that since he was "wilfully neglecting" his work, and "loafing on the job" he wanted Fivecoate to draw up a letter describing the situation. On January 14, 1946, Fivecoate brought the requested letter to Pat Martin who took it to Laney's office. Laney later notified Pat Martin that Claude Martin was being discharged as of February 7, 1946, and Pat Martin then called in Claude and the actual discharge followed. Fivecoate testified that he found Claude Martin's work satisfactory until November or December 1944. At that time he said he noticed various "flares" in the lines, which indicated to him that the field work was not being done properly. He called this matter to the attention of Claude Martin, who, he testified, said that he was doing the best he could. Fivecoate also alleged that at about the same time, November or December 1944, he found that Claude Martin was working in a ditch while two of his men, Davis and Byard were sitting by doing nothing. Fivecoate testified that when he called this to the attention of Claude 11 Claude Martin testified, and he is credited, that from July 1944 to December 1944, he and his gang were employed on the Boulder water line which ran some 18 or 20 miles west of the plant ; that as a result the only time that he spent on the incoming gas lines from the lease was on occasional Sundays or when the pipe lines would be frozen, at which time he would be called off the Boulder job. He also testified that at that time he had no respon- sibility for the "drips," such responsibility having been given to an independent contractor named Cunningham . Since the Boulder job had nothing to do with the variations in gas volume described by Pat Martin , it must be concluded that the latter was in error in ascrib- ing the responsibility for them to Claude Martin. THE TEXAS COMPANY 873 Martin, the latter said that if he did not do the work himself he would find it impossible to get the work done." Fivecoate testified that he approached Pat Martin in January 1945, and told him about Claude Martin's work.14 In February 1945, Fivecoate and Martin called Claude Martin's gang to a meeting at which the situation was generally discussed. Fivecoate testified that on April 29, 1945, Claude Martin allowed his men 1 hour and 40 minutes for lunch. Fivecoate testified that when he reprimanded Claude Martin on this occasion, Martin swore at him. Fivecoate also testified that he called Claude Martin to a meeting with Pat Martin in August 1945, at which he, Fivecoate, told Claude that he was giving him his "last chance." Fivecoate testified that Claude Martin promised to do better, if he, Fivecoate, would "get rid of three men," Davis, Byard and Scott McCoy.16 Fivecoate testified that on October 23, 1945, he accompanied Claude at the latter's request into Pat Martin's office and at this time Pat Martin gave Claude "his last chance." and that Claude Martin thereupon again asked Pat Martin and Fivecoate to get rid of the three men in his crew referred to above. Fivecoate admitted that he wrote a letter " about Claude Martin at Pat Martin's request, and that this letter was written about January 14, 1946. He testified that he wrote the complete letter from memory and that he remembered all the incidents described therein as to time and place without any assistance or without referring to any records." This letter deals in great detail with Claude Martin's record, and it was this letter that Pat Martin took to Laney to initiate Claude Martin's discharge. A general charge in the letter was that Claude passed on to his men whatever was said to him about these very men by Fivecoate. The letter specifically gives the names of Jesse Lemmons as a "witness" to this conduct, and Fivecoate testified that Lemmons had told him about it. But Lemmons, when called as a witness for the respondent, denied that he had ever talked to Fivecoate or Pat Martin about Claude Martin and his testimony is credited in this respect. Since Five- coate did not testify that he was present at the alleged tale-bearing, and in effect supported the statement in his letter by alleging that Lemmons was a "witness" to it, Lemmons' denial that he had ever talked to Fivecoate or Pat Martin about Claude is indicative to the undersigned that the story is either pure fabrication on Fivecoate's part or else that Lemmons was not a witness to such tale-bearing and that Fivecoate's memory was faulty. Lemmons, who had been working for Claude Martin until the strike, did not testify that he had heard Claude repeat anything of which Fivecoate had told him in confidence. 11 Claude Martin could not remember any occasion when such an incident had occurred. 14 He was positive that he approached Pat, and that it was he who raised the subject of Claude Martin's work, although Pat Martin testified that he had raised the subject with Fivecoate. 16 Pat Martin testified that Claude Martin did not ask for the removal of these three men until October 1945. Fivecoate said the incident occurred in both August and October. This conflict in the testimony of two of the respondent's witnesses is important since the October meeting occurred after the strike. If Claude Martin, as he testified credibly, never raised the question at all but was forced to agree to the transfer of two of the three men in October, after the strike, Pat Martin's testimony at least agrees with Claude Martin's testimony as to the fact that what discussion did occur, occurred in October. Fivecoate's testimony placing the incident in August is not credited, and the undersigned finds that his motive in doing so was to make it appear that the strike had nothing to do with the discharge of Claude Martin. 16 The letter is reproduced in its entirety in Appendix B herein. 17 Fivecoate testified that he kept no written records and when examined as to how he remembered exactly the names, places and times referred to in the letter, said that he depended upon his memory. 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fivecoate wrote in the letter that on April 29, 1945, Claude gave his men 1 hour and 40 minutes for lunch. Claude admitted this to be true, but explained on re- buttal that April 29, 1945, was a Sunday and that Fivecoate allowed the men in the field crew to do a lesser amount of work than normally required when they worked Sundays." Claude also testified that Clyde Hurst, assistant foreman at the time, did not object when he, Claude, suggested that his crew start an hour earlier on that particular day so that they might quit an hour earlier. Instead of taking the extra hour at the end of the day, Claude allowed his men to take an extra hour for lunch. Fivecoate, in omitting the important details of this incident, which the undersigned finds were known to him at the time he wrote the letter, clearly demonstrated his desire to "get" Martin. It is by this omission, as much as by what the letter alleges, that the good faith of Fivecoate must be judged. There are several other alleged charges as to very minor derelictions of duty on the part of Claude Martin for the period from April to August 23, 1945. Claude Martin generally denied such derelictions, and even Pat Martin, as re- spondent's witness, testified that Fivecoate had not complained about Claude Martin's work during that period. Fivecoate's letter refers to the August 23, 1945, meeting at which he later testified at the hearing that Claude Martin asked that Fivecoate get rid of three of his men. But there is no mention, either directly or indirectly, of any such fact in the letter. Pat Martin was also present at this meeting, and did not testify that Claude Martin had asked for the transfer or discharge of the three men at that time, but, on the contrary, placed the alleged incident in October.10 For this and other reasons implicit in the fact that his testimony con- tained many contradictions, and from his observation of the witness, and for still other reasons which will appear below, the undersigned does not credit any of Fivecoate's testimony. Pat Martin's testimony is likewise open to question. Thus he testified that it was he who called Fivecoate's attention in late 1944 or early 1945 to the fact that the volume of gas reaching the plant was subject to serious variations and that his independent investigation had shown Claude to be responsible for this. But Fivecoate testified that he did not discuss Claude Martin with Pat Martin at Martin's request, but that instead he went to Martin to report Claude Martin 20 Pat Martin and Fivecoate are in agreement that Claude Martin, beginning about December 1, 1944, was a poor foreman. On the other hand Claude Martin testi- fied that he was not criticized, reprimanded or otherwise attacked until after the strike of September-October 1945, and it would thus appear that it was not until after he had appeared on the picket line and had been identified by Pat Martin and Fivecoate that a change in their attitude to him was visible. Since both of the latter witnesses contradict each other and are in turn con- 18 Fivecoate did not deny this. 10 Pat Martin testified that Claude Martin did not ask for the discharge or transfer of these three men until October 1945, after the strike. 70 Claude Martin's testimony that he was engaged on the Boulder water line project during this time , and that Cunningham was responsible for the "drips" has been credited. It would thus be impossible for Martin to be responsible for any conditions coming about as a result of the derelictions of Cunningham , presuming arguendo that Pat Martin's testimony with respect to variations in gas volume is credited . See footnote supra. THE TEXAS COMPANY 875 tradicted by other witnesses for the respondent," the undersigned does not credit their testimony, and does credit the testimony of Claude Martin in every respect. Although both Fivecoate and Pat Martin denied that they had asked Claude Martin to discharge Davis and Byard, and insisted that it was Claude who blamed Davis, Byard and Scott McCoy for poor work and asked that they be removed from his gang, the undersigned finds this testimony incredible not only because it is contradicted by so much credible testimony, but because of the innate improbability of the facts which it assumes. Thus, Pat Martin and Fivecoate testified in effect that Claude Martin in spite of his demonstrated membership and sympathy for the Union asked for the discharge of three of his men, all active members of the Union, and all of whom picketed with him during the strike. Since Pat Martin and Fivecoate are at variance in their testimony as to when Claude Martin made this request, and since such a course of conduct on Claude's part seems in the highest degree unlikely, the undersigned finds it impossible to credit Fivecoate and Pat Martin in this aspect of their testimony as in many others. In addition both Davis and Byard testified, and they rre credited, that Pat Martin told them on the day they were transferred from out of Claude's gang, that he had a letter signed by Claude which recommended their dismissal, but that when they requested an opportunity to see this letter, Pat refused to let them do so. At the hearing Pat Martin denied that such a letter ever existed. Claude Martin on the other hand testified, and he is credited that both Pat Martin and Fivecoate threatened to discharge him if he refused to recommend the discharge of Davis and Byard, and that they told him they had a letter recommending dismissal of these men ready for him to sign. The undersigned finds that the entire story of an existing signed letter told to Davis and Byard was a fabrication designed and intended to cause these union men to suspect each other and to quarrel among themselves, so that Davis and Byard would quit the respondent's employment 22 It is urged by the respondent that two fires which occurred in November 1945, on jobs on which Claude Martin was engaged were caused by his care- lessness and by his disregard of orders. Claude denied that he had disobeyed orders or that he was careless on these jobs, and testified that these were minor fires which are commonplace in such an operation as the respondent is engaged upon, and that, in addition, they were unavoidable, and that Fivecoate had so agreed. It is interesting to note that Fivecoate admitted on cross-examination, 21 Another example of such contradictions is shown by an analysis of the testimony respecting the transfer of non -union men from Claude Martin's supervision after the strike. Claude testified on direct examination that after the strike Fivecoate removed several non-union men from under his supervision , and left only the union men under his command. Claude did not name these non-union men in this section of his testimony. Thereafter , both Pat Martin and Fivecoate testified in substance that none of Claude's men were removed from his supervision after the strike . The respondent then called William H. Aaron, a field roustabout and formerly under Claude Martin. He was called for another purpose, but in his testimony he revealed that he had been transferred out of Claude 's gang after the strike . Claude called on rebuttal , then identified both Aaron and Lemmons as non-union roustabouts who had been transferred from his gang just after the strike. The respondent did not recall Lemmons so that apart from the general denial of Pat Martin and Fivecoate , Claude Martin 's testimony in this very important respect stands undenied , and indeed , supported , by the respondent 's own witnesses , and by the same token Fivecoate and Pat Martin are shown to have been in error. 22 Byard testified , and he is credited , that Pat Martin told him that "if we could not get along" he "would rather we just quit." 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that a fire occurred on a job under his own direction, and that two employees were burned as a result It is admitted that the fires which occurred on Claude Martin's jobs entailed no injury to personnel. The undersigned credits Martin and finds that the two fires referred to above were minor in nature and that Claude Martin was not responsible for their occurrence, c,r that he was care- less or disobeyed orders with respect to them, or that these fires directly, or indirectly, were the real reason for his discharge. The facts are clear. The undersigned believes and finds that there were no seri- ous derelictions of duty on Claude Martin's part before or after the September- October strike. Certainly such derelictions as are alleged are puny things indeed when compared to the fact that the only employee of supervisory status, equal to or superior to that of Claude -Martin, who had been discharged at the Salem plant was one who had been convicted of dishonesty with respect to respondent's property. None of the witnesses for either side could remember ani/ discharges for poor work for the entire period of the plant's operation, except for the three which occurred on February 7, 1946, and all of which are alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatory. With an employment history of this kind it would normally be expected that this respondent would discharge a foreman only upon serious grounds. The undersigned finds that there was only one reason for the discharge of Claude Martin, and that reason was his union membership and activity, and, as a corollary thereto, his refusal to recommend the discharge of two union men. Further discussion of the motivation behind his discharge will be reserved for a later section of this report. 3 The discharge of Pursley and Riggs a. Russell F. Pursley Russell E. Pursley was employed by the respondent on October 25, 1945. He had been honorably discharged from the Navy a very short time previously 23 Pursley brought his job application to Laney, who hired him as a plant roustabout in the plant yard at the rate of 97 cents per hour, explaining to him that at the end of the 90 days he would receive a 10 cent increase. Laney told Pursley that there had been labor trouble at the plant. He said. "I do not know how you stand with the Union. I do not know whether you are for the Union or not." Pursley told Laney that he had worked in plants which had been organized by unions. Laney then said, "Well, the thing for you to do is to go out there and make the Texas Company a good hand and you can take into consideration that you do not have to join the Union for a year. That is stated in the G. I. Bill of Rights . . . they say in that G. I. Bill of Rights when a man goes back to a job, that has no Union or a Union job, he does not have to join a Union for 365 days." 24 On the second day of his employment Pat Martin approached Pursley and told him that he had 365 days to join the Union. Martin added, "any man who carries a Union card cannot work for a major oil company." 23 23 At the time Pursley was hired, respondent was hiring a good many ex-servicemen. Between October 25, 1945, and February 7, 1946, approximately 16 men were hired by the respondent all of whom were ex-servicemen. 21 This section of the Intermediate Report is based on Pursley 's credited testimony. Laney did not testify. 21 Pat Martin denied that he had said this. The undersigned credits Pursley. THE TEXAS COMPANY 877 On October 26, 194•;, a Union representative named Uhls approached Pursley and asked him to join the Union. Pursley agreed and was sworn in as a member on the following day. About 3 weeks later during a lunch period, a group of men including Uhls and Putsley were eating in a small building called a "dog house" located on the plant premises. Present also was S. P. Hulen, one of the head roustabouts in the Plant Yard. In Hulen's presence, Pursley asked Uhls for a union button. Pursley testified, and lie is credited, that Hulen there- upon got up and walked out of the dog house28 A very few days after Pursley obtained employment with the respondent he was put to work under John L Hamilton, a newly appointed head roustabout, who had been an employee of the respondent for some 20 years. Thereafter, and for the duration of the time that Pursley remained an employee of the re- spondent, Hamilton supervised his work for about two-thirds of the time. The remaining one-third of Pursley's time was spent under the supervision of Hulen or other supervisors depending upon the type of work he was assigned to do. Shortly before he had completed 90 days of service with the respondent, Pursley made inquiries as to when he would be given an increase in pay. Re- -ceiving no definitive answer, Pursley waited until January 28, 1946, 3 days after the i)0-day period had expired and then went to Pat Martin's office to ask him whether he was going to get his increase. Not finding Martin, Pursley went back to the Plant Yard and there saw Uhls, who was at that time a member of the Union Negotiating Committee. Pursley told Uhls that he had not received his increase in pay and asked him to look into the matter. Thereafter, between January 28 and February 7, 1946, the Union Committee consisting of Uhls, J. Q. Newell, and Roy Francis, met with Superintendent Arnold. Both Laney and Pat Martin were also present at this meeting. The Union Committee asked the respondent's representatives why Pursley and Riggs 24 had not received their increases Arnold told the Union Committee in substance that he intended to make a prompt and definite decision relative to such increases. Laney said that an oversight had occurred in respect to these two men and the matter would be immediately looked into. On February 6, Pat Martin called Pursley in his office and told him that the Tulsa office of the respondent had not recommended him for an increase. Martin told I'ursley that Hulen had said that he, Pursley, was "not a roustabout and never would be a roustabout and . . . was not worth a damn." Pursley met Hulen as he left Martin's office and asked him whether Martin had quoted him accurately. Hulen told Pursley that he had never told Martin any such tiling but that Pat Martin had asked him whether, considering the fact that there were certain first class roustabouts in the Yard, would he care to recommend Pursley to become a first-class roustabout.28 According to Pursley, Hulen said, "you know, yourself, you can't do this work [the same as] White and Nelson," for you do not hai e any experience " Pursley reminded Hulen that a few days previous he, Hulen, had told Pursley that he was a good roustabout, but on this occasion Hulen denied that the former incident had occurred. On the following day, February 7, 1946, Pursley was called into the office by Pat Martin and discharged. 2e Hulen denied that this incident had occurred, but for reasons which will appear below, the undersigned does not credit his denial. 27 The matter of Riggs will be discussed below. 28 All roustabouts were classified under one heading. The respondent did not maintain a "first-class" roustabout category. 11 White and Nelson were roustabouts with several years of experience. 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD b. Jesse Riggs" Jesse Riggs was employed by the respondent on October 22, 1945, as a Plant Yard roustabout 01 For 3 months previous to this time he had worked for the Dresser Engineering Company which did certain roustabout work for the re- spondent. After the strike, the Dresser Company had ceased operations and recommended certain of its employees to the respondent for employment. Among these were Riggs. Riggs applied to Laney for a job and was told that he was to start at 97 cents an hour and at the end of the first 90 days of service would receive a 10 cent increase. Laney told Riggs as he had told Pursley that Riggs did not have to join the Union for a year. Riggs worked with Pursley under Hamilton for about two-thirds of his time, the remainder of which was spent under Hulen. During this period Riggs joined the Union. It is undenied that up to the date of their discharge, only Riggs and Pursley in the Plant Yard roustabout crew had joined the Union. At the end of the first 90 days Riggs inquired about the 10 cent increase and, not receiving a satisfactory answer, went directly to Roy Francis, the Union Negotiating Committee representative. Francis, together with Uhls and Newell, took up Riggs' case at the conference with Arnold described above. Riggs was discharged on February 7, 1946, on the same day on which Pursley and Claude Martin were discharged. c. The respondent's contentions as to Riggs and Pursley The respondent offered as an exhibit a letter written by Pat Martin to Laney and dated January 25, 1946, in which Martin discussed the work of Pursley and Riggs and made recommendations as to them which allegedly led to their dis- charge " Martin opened the letter by referring to a "recent discussion" held with Laney "Concerning the work" of these two men. He described Riggs' employment with the Dresser Company and characterized it as being of a "menial nature."" Martin wrote that Riggs' "immediate superior had stated that he seemed incapa- ble of learning the job." Martin then requested that Riggs be discharged. In a later section of the same letter, Martin discussed Pursley. He said that he found it "hard" to "convey . . . Pursley's case in writing." Martin said that Pursley showed signs of being capable of becoming a first-class roustabout. "However," he added, Pursley's "work and his interest in it was less than mediocre . . . he hangs back and does only enough work to get by. His attitude and work has been practically the same during his whole period of employment. On the third day of his employment he "noticed Pursley's attitude and discussed it with his supervisor." Martin concluded the letter by recommending Pursley's discharge. The testimony offered by the respondent in support of its contention that it discharged Pursley and Riggs for reasons having nothing to do with union 80 The following is based on the credited testimony of Riggs. 81 Riggs was also an honorably discharged veteran. 88 This letter is reproduced in its entirety in "Appendix C" of this report. 83 Riggs performed exactly the same Work for the Dresser Company as he later performed for the respondent. His job title "roustabout" was the same . However , Dresser paid him a dollar an hour while the respondent paid him only 97 cents per hour. If he had received his raise at the end of 90 days , he would have been earning $1.07 per hour with the respondent. THE TEXAS COMPANY 879 activities, contains much of the same matter described in Martin's letter. Since both Pursley and Riggs denied that they had done poor work or that they had been criticized at any time, it is clear that a resolution of the question concern- ing their discharge must, in the last analysis, depend upon the credibility of the witnesses. The respondent's chief witness as to the work of Riggs and Pursley was E. P. Hulen. It must be assumed from the nature of the respondent's defense, that it was he who was the unnamed supervisor referred to by Pat Martin in his letter. Both Pursley and Riggs testified that they were under the direct supervision of Hamilton for two-thirds of the time during which they were employed by the respondent. Hamilton, a head roustabout, testified that this was true and that the work of these two men, while under him, was average. He also testi- fied that he would not have recommended their discharge and that the discharge became effective at a time when he was off for 2 days and without previous consultation with him. He also testified that there were employees at the Plant Yard who had been employed at the same time as Pursley and Riggs and who were still employees of the Company, having received their 10 cent increase at the end of 90 days' service, and who would never become "capable" oil field workers. On the other hand, E. P. Hulen testified that he was a head roustabout with some 4 months' more experience on the job than Hamilton. He testified that he had had supervision of Riggs and Pursley for 60 or 70 percent of the time." Hulen testified at length that in January 1946 certain repairs were made to an Iso-pentane tank which had been pulled in by vacuum. The repair job required the laying of a 2-inch line from the fire hydrant to the tank. Hulen testified that while Riggs was assigned to this job together with other men, he did not work but "just stood back and watched the work." Riggs denied that he had ever worked on this job and the Board called two witnesses, Davis and Pursley, who testified in detail that they were the men who had been assigned to the job together with another employee, Stonecipher. Davis testified, and his testimony was not contradicted, that Hulen personally sent him and two other employees to do the job and described the matter in such detail that the undersigned is convinced and finds that Riggs never worked on this particular job as alleged by Hulen. Hulen also testified that Riggs, in December of 1945, was instructed by him to assist another employee named Evans in laying certain steel grating. Hulen testified that Evans did the work "while Riggs was of little help." Riggs testified that there were two other employees beside himself engaged on the job. One 84 In this direct clash of testimony between these witnesses, the undersigned credits Pursley, Riggs and Hamilton. The latter impressed the undersigned as a forthright and honest witness and willing to tell the whole truth. The respondent in its brief does not contest Hamilton's verity, but contends that Hulen's testimony, properly interpreted, means that Hamilton was under Hulen, even though each of them had a similar title, and since Hamilton was "new" at the job of head roustabout, Hulen kept a rather close watch over Hamilton and the men he directed. But Hulen's testimony on direct examination does not support this contention for he testified : Q. Did Mr. Riggs and Mr. Pursley operate under your immediate orders all of the time or under Mr. Hamilton all of the time or part under one and part under the other? A I would say part under one and part under the other. Q. What would be your best estimate of the time, is the proportion of time when Mr. Riggs and Mr. l'ursley acted under your direct orders? A. Oh, I would say 60 or 70 percent of the time. 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was Evans" and the other Raze Parrish. Riggs testified that whatever delay occurred on the job was due to the fact that Parrish was doing the measuring and cutting of the grating so that Evans and he had to wait for this part of the job to be done before they could proceed. Hulen testified that he instructed Pursley and another employee to wash a boiler on January 12, 1946. Returning occasionally to see how they were getting along, he saw Pursley having conversations with other men away from the job to which he had been assigned. Pursley denied this. On January 16, 1946, just 4 days later, Hulen instructed Pursley to help clean out a large tank. Rubber boots were needed for this job and Hulen testified that it took Pursley 15 minutes to return with the boots although another roustabout, employed on the same job, took 4 or 5 minutes to get his boots. Pursley admitted that he had taken 15 minutes to get these boots but explained the delay by stating that the ware- houseman, who issued the boots, was busy "tallying pipe with a truck driver." The warehouseman was not called as a witness. Pursley denied that another employee was sent with him to the warehouse to get the boots. Pursley is credited. Hulen alleged that on an unnamed date he assigned two men, one of whom was Pursley,36 to do a certain job. Hulen's instructions had been that only brass tools were to be used, but upon investigation, Hulen said he found that the men had also requisitioned a steel wire brush although they were not using it. Hulen said he saw the brush there and instructed the men not to use it, but that there- after, in his presence, Pursley picked up the brush and began to use it where- upon Hulen threw the brush on the ground Pursley denied that this incident had ever occurred and he is credited. The undersigned did not find Hulen to be a credible ww itness. Particularly with respect to the incident in which there is a direct conflict between his testi- mony and Hamilton's testimony, as well as with respect to the incident relating to Riggs' assignment to the iso-pentane tank repair job, the undersigned is convinced and finds that Hulen did not testify to the facts as lie knew them. On the other hand, the undersigned found Pursley, Riggs, and Hamilton to be straightforward and truthful witnesses and they are credited ." The undersigned is convinced and finds that Pursley and Riggs were dis- charged not because of their poor work but because of their union membership and for other reasons relative thereto discussed below. B. Other interferences , restraint , and coervton The complaint alleged that the respondent had committed certain unfair labor practices in addition to the discharges discussed hereinbefore. These will now be discussed. n Neither Parrish nor Evans testified 36 Hulen could not remember the name of the other employee. az Richard Jones, assistant plant foreman , and thus directly below Pat Martin, but over Hulen and Hamilton in the supervisory hierarchy , testified that there was at least one employee , J. D Bassinger , whom he named as being in the same class as Riggs as to com- petency and who was still employed by respondent after 3 years of service with the respondent . Jones testified that he did not recommend increases for either Pursley or Riggs , but that he did not recommend their discharge . He also testified that Pursley was "unnecessarily rough " in his work on the one occasion when he observed it, and that Riggs had been "loafing" while digging a ditch on another occasion THE TEXAS COMPANY 881 1. Advising newly hired employees that they need not decide about the Union for a year from the hiring date Both Pursley and Riggs testified, and they are credited, that they were advised by Laney at the time they were employed that they did not need to decide about the Union for a year, and Laney, who did not testify, also told them that his statement was based upon a provision in the G. I. Bill of Rights. Pat Martin also advised Pursley that he did not have to join the Union for a year. Such conduct on the part of Laney and Martin was obvious interference with the rights of the employees. Irrespective of the fact that Laney or Martin may have believed that the G. I. Bill of Rights did contain such a provision, they had no right to advise newly hired employees in the manner that they did. The fact that the G. I. Bill of Rights does not contain a provision applicable to the situa- tion in the plant at that time leads the undersigned to believe that Laney and Martin entered upon this line of conduct together with other activities discussed herein in order to defeat the Union's attempts to organize the newly employed workers in the respondent's plant. 2. The respondent ordered the discharge of two Union members This allegation of the complaint is substantiated by the testimony of Claude Martin, who it will be remembered, testified that he was ordered to recommend the discharge of Davis and Byard, and was told that if he did not do so he himself would be discharged. Although both Martin and Fivecoate denied this, the undersigned has credited Claude Martin. The respondent contends in effect that such conduct on the part of Pat Martin and Fivecoate is not likely to have occurred because Davis and Byard were not discharged and were transferred to another job and that thereafter, Byard was promoted to head roustabout. The undersigned believes that the promotion of Byard was part of a carefully con- cocted scheme by Pat Martin to disrupt the Union and to cause Byard, its sec- retary, to renounce his allegiance to it. The full details of this incident will be discussed below. The undersigned finds that Pat Martin and Fivecoate ordered Claude Martin to discharge Davis and Byard and that their purpose in doing so was to break up the Union. Such conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice and it is so found. 3 The respondent misrepresented to Union members that their immediate supervisor had recommended their discharge In connection with the transfers of Davis and Byard from under the super- vision of Pat Martin both Davis and Byard testified that they were told by Pat Martin and Fivecoate that the latter had in their possession a letter signed by Claude Martin in which he recommended their discharge 38 Pat Martin also endeavored to persuade Byard to quit his employment with the respondent by stating to him that "if" he "could not get along" Martin would rather he "just quit." It is found that such conduct by Pat Martin was intended to have the effect of inducing these employees to quit their employment, in pursuance of Martin's plan to destroy the Union. Is It has been noted that Claude Martin denied he had written such a letter and that Pat Martin denied such a letter existed. 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The respondent questioned its employees concerning their Union membership and activities, and warning them against assisting the Union Pearl Tadlock, an employee of the respondent, testified that Pat Martin told him on an occasion when he requested a transfer back into the Plant Yard that: * * * We have reports, but not recently, that you have been contacting new employees and soliciting them to affiliate with the Union. You are going to be out now mingling with men, and we do not want to hear any more of that. We have also had reports on Uhls and you better speak to him for we will not tolerate it. The respondent endeavored to show that Tadlock may have been engaging in union activity on company time. Tadlock denied this and he is credited. The undersigned finds that Tadlock was questioned with respect to his union activity in order to discourage him from pursuing it further, and that such conduct on the respondent's part constituted an unfair labor practice. Lawrence N. Howe testified that he was questioned by 0. H. Davis, a super- visor in charge of the plant guard force, with respect to his views about the Union. He further testified that on February 25, 1946, Pat Martin called him in to his office and told him that "it is immaterial to us what your view is in regard to the Union, but we would much rather you would continue with your record of the past." [Italics added.] About a week thereafter Pat Martin approached Howe and asked him if any of the men were "bothering" him. Howe replied, "not too much." Martin thereupon said, "if any of the Union men try to persuade you to join the Union during working hours, remember their statements word for word and stand pat for it when we bring it up for trial and I will see that individual does not bother you any more." The respondent endeavored to show that an employee named Kennedy had reported to Pat Martin that both Howe and an employee named Walker had asked him to get in touch with Pat Martin with respect to the fact that Howe and Walker were being annoyed by the solicitation of union men. However, Howe testified, and he is credited, that Kennedy was anti-union and that he was con- tinually lecturing both Howe and his fellow workmen with respect to the Union. Finally, Howe testified, they asked Mr. Kennedy "what" they "were supposed to do in case the Union members bother us when we were on the job." Howe denied that he had asked Kennedy to report this to Martin or that he had in any way suggested to Kennedy that the matter be taken up as the result of actual interference by Union members with Howe himself. The undersigned finds that Pat Martin as part of his activity in combating the Union endeavored to make Howe an agent in reporting union activities of other employees to him, while per- mitting Kennedy the utmost freedom in conducting anti-union activities on company time and property. 5. The respondent discriminated against Union members in work assignments Claude Martin, Davis, and Byard testified that after the strike during which Claude Martin and the Union members among the field roustabout gang had picketed the plant, they were given the hardest and dirtiest assignments, while the non-union men who were placed under Fivecoate at this time did compara- tively little work. This testimony is credited, and the undersigned accordingly finds that assignment of work in the field roustabout gang after the strike was made on a discriminatory basis, as part of a plan to discourage labor organiza- THE TEXAS COMPANY 883 tion among the respondent's employees, and that this conduct therefore con- stituted an unfair labor practice. 6. The respondent attempted to discredit the Union by spreading false rumors that the Union was calling a strike The Board alleged that certain rumors were spread by respondent's foremen that a strike was being called at 10 a. in. on or about January 12, 1946. The respondent admitted that it had asked its foremen to tell the employees that if a strike did occur, they were at liberty to stay in the plant or go home, as they chose. The respondent contends that it acted as it did because it had been informed by an employee that he had attended a union meeting on the previous evening, and that it had there been decided to call a strike for 10 a. in. the fol- lowing morning. The Board brought forward some testimony to indicate that there was no union meeting at the time mentioned. The respondent contended that since it had no reason to question the reliability of the employee who gave it the information, and in pursuance of its duty to protect its equipment, it asked the foremen to instruct employees not to shut off equipment, but simply to leave the plant if they desired to do so. In the present state of the evidence the undersigned is unable to find that the respondent was not justified in its conduct with respect to the strike rumors it had received, and will accordingly recommend the dismissal of the allegation of the complaint relating thereto. Conclusions It has been particularly important to the undersigned in reaching his con- clusions as to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint herein, to evaluate the entire situation existing at the respondent's plant during the period of union organization. The situation was this. The Union had begun organizing the plant some months before the strike of September-October, 1945. Activity on behalf of the Union was not, as far as the record shows, carried on with a great deal of noise or outward to-do. Up to the time of the strike union activity was not in the open, and there are no indications in the record that there were any unfair labor practices or untoward occurrences of any kind. The strike occurred on September 28, 1945. The pickets arrived at the plant and set up their lines."B Many of the employees refused to cross the picket line while others actually marched on the picket lines. Among these were Claude Martin, Davis, and Byard. On the other hand, all supervisors except Claude Martin, as well as a group of non-union employees, passed the picket line daily on their way to work. During the 2 weeks of the strike, a very real line of cleavage between the union and non-union men developed. This cleavage is referred to constantly in the testimony, and although Pat Martin testified that he did not know which of the employees were union, and which non-union, the undersigned is convinced, and finds on the totality of his testimony that Martin did know of the union sympathy or lack of it in the minds of many of the employees. As soon as the strike was over and the men had returned to work, new cleav- ages between union and non-union men began to appear. For example, it has "Pat Martin characterized the pickets as "Coxey's Army" when describing this event on the witness stand. 817319-49-vol. 80-57 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been found that Claude Martin's gang was separated into two groups ; Claude supervised a group of men who were union members while the non-union members in the same gang were kept by Fivecoate. Thus also in the distribution of the work beginning at this time, it has been found that Claude Martin's group of union employees received the hardest and dirtiest assignments. It has also been found that Claude Martin was then called into Pat Martin's office and told that he would have to get rid of Davis and Byard under penalty of losing his own job. The respondent contends that this story of Claude Martin is untrue on its face for, it argues, if the respondent wished to discharge Davis and Byard it could have done so without consulting Martin. This allegation of the respondent has no merit, for it is evident that if Claude Martin could have been threatened or persuaded into discharging Davis and Byard, thus making him nominally responsible for the discharges, the Union would have been split by intra-union squabbles and recriminations. At about the same time the respondent began to hire many new employees. Every one of them, at least in the Plant Yard, was an ex-serviceman, and Pat Martin and Laney assured at least two of them that they did not have to join the Union for a year. Such assurances constituted unnecessary interference with the right of the employees to choose their own course in joining or refusing to join the Union. Davis and Byard were transferred at the end of October 1945, to the Plant Yard. Davis resigned to enter his own business shortly thereafter ; however, Byard was approached by Pat Martin in late January or early February, 1946, and was told by the latter that a position as head roustabout was open. Martin then asked Byard what he intended to do about his position with the Union. At this time Byard was secretary of the local Union. Byard said that he thought he could get a leave of absence "to see whether he could make the grade or not." Pat Martin then told Byard that a "man would get farther with the company if he were out of the union." Byard testified that he understood Martin to mean that he was being asked to resign from the Union before he got the job. Martin testified that he simply wanted to warn Byard that under the proposed union contract as it stood at that time, a demoted supervisor would lose all seniority rights, and that since he did not consider that the job might last beyond 6 months, he felt it incumbent upon himself to warn Byard of what might occur at a later date. The undersigned does not credit Pat Martin in his version of the incident. It does not seem to the undersigned that Pat Martin could at one and the same time have known that Davis and Byard were loafing on the job under Claude Martin as testified to by Fivecoate, and at the same time offer Byard a raise in pay and status, without some other motive other than the fact that in less than 3 months Byard had demonstrated his ability to become a head roustabout. The real motive, the undersigned believes and finds, was to sway the secretary of the Union in his loyalty to it. That the attempt failed, and that Byard remained secretary of the Union is no proof to the contrary in view of the other circum- stances then existing. Riggs and Pursley likewise were union men. It has been found that they were the only two union men of the entire group who came to work at approxi- mately the same time as they did. They were in a position which made them extremely vulnerable in that their 90 days of service had just expired. Never- theless when the Union committee went in to see Arnold, Laney and Pat Martin about these two men, and after the letter concerning them had, according to THE TEXAS COMPANY 885 the date on its face, been written, Laney said , in substance , that they had not received their increases through an oversight. If the letter actually had been written at that time, then Laney was not telling the whole truth to Arnold and the Union committee. If, on the other hand, this was the first intimation that Laney and Martin had that Riggs and Pursley were union men (there is spe- cific testimony by members of the Union committee that both Riggs and Pur- sley were identified at the meeting as union members) and the letter referred to was not then in existence, the inference is inescapable that it was written at a later date than is shown. In any event, the undersigned has found it unneces- sary to resolve this contradiction, for he has found that the discharge of Par- sley and Riggs was consummated because of their union activities. The undersigned believes and finds that the discharges of Claude Martin, Riggs and Pursley, together with the other unfair labor practices found herein were part of a plan to destroy the Union at the respondent' s Salem plant, and to coerce the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.40 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain 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. It has been found that the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Claude A. Martin, Russell E. Pursley, and Jesse R. Riggs for the reason that they assisted labor organizations and engaged in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It will therefore be recommended by the undersigned that the respondent imme- diately offer Martin, Pursley, and Riggs full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory discharges by payment to them of sums of money equal to the amount which each of them normally would have earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the date of respondent's offer of reinstatement less their net earnings during such period 93 40 Since the departure of Pat Martin from the Salem plant and since Colonel Arnold has taken over the complete management of labor relations at the plant , there has been a decided change for the better and there have been no discharges or other unfair labor practices . The parties are presently operating under a union contract. 41 By net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The scope of the respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization among its employees, and there seems to be an underlying attitude of opposition on the part of the respondent to the purposes of the Act to protect the employees generally." The undersigned is convinced that under the circumstances described hereinabove, that if the respondent is not restrained from committing such conduct, the danger of its commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past, and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the under- signed will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner Infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since it has been found that the respondent did not interfere with its employees by its conduct with respect to the strike rumor, it will be recommended that the allegations of the complaint pertaining thereto, be dismissed. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 553, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this report, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (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. 5. The respondent has not interfered with its employees by its conduct with respect to the strike rumor, and its conduct with respect thereto was not there- fore in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the respondent, The Texas Company, Salem, Illi- nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 553, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment ; 42 See May Department Stores Company , etc. V. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. THE TEXAS COMPANY 887 (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 553, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 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) Offer to the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this report, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this report, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date he was discriminatorily deprived of his employment, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings " during said period ; (c) Post immediately at its plant at Salem, Illinois, copies of the notice in the form attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, after being duly signed by the respondent, or its agents, shall be posted by the respondent immedi- ately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith ; (e) It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent committed an unfair labor practice with respect to its conduct concerning the strike rumor. 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 the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommen- dations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, 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 or proceeding +a By "former" positions is meant the positions held during that period on and Immedi- ately prior to the date of discharge, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent position. 11 See footnote 41, supra. 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. VICTOR IIIRSHFIELD, Trial Eccanainer. Dated September 27, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGI- NEERS, LOCAL 553, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Claude A. Martin Russell E. Pursley Jesse R. Riggs All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. THE TEXAS COMPANY, Employer. Dated-------------------------- By-------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be alerted, defaced, or covered by any other material. THE TEXAS COMPANY 889 APPENDIX B SALEM, ILLINOIS, Jan. 14, 1945. Mr. P. J. MARTIN Subject : Claude A. Martin, Field Head Rst. In January 1945 I brought to your attention Claude A. Martin, Field Head Rst., concerning his work and handling men, which hasn't been satisfactory with me. By writing this letter I want you to know that I have no grudge and am not trying to discriminate against Claude. I am just writing the plain facts as I see them and would like for you to check on what I am about to write. Claude was promoted to Head Rst. in June 1944 and for the first 6 months he did a real man's job. He executed all of my orders that I gave him and done a good job of handling his men. But in Jan. 1945 he seemed to change in his work. He became careless and would disregard my orders or change them to suit himself. And the men began to take the same attitude of which I can under- stand now. The working conditions were good, and on any tough job where there was danger, I was always there to see about the safety of the men and to help out Claude. But as I had other field work to take care of I could not be with them as much as I had been in the past and the work began to stack up. I just couldn't seem to get the work done with the number of field men and on checking I find that there was too much time spent in the Pumper Dog houses in the Field ; instead of working Claude A. Martin allowed this idle time to exist, and he would be spending idle time with them. Sometimes he would take the Gang and hide all day. I have checked several times and had my meter men to do the same for me trying to locate them when a Repressuring line was busted, but failed to locate them. This I also brought to your attention, and as time passed on I called the men in and had a talk with them. This was in Feb. 1945, that I called the men in to find out what the trouble was; I told them we had a job that had to be done and would have to cut down on the idle time spend in dong-houses and other places. And of course this did not set very good with Claude and the men. And from then on Claude would not cooperate with me in anyway and would change my orders. When I would request to know why he changed them he, Claude, would try to bluff his way out by getting mad. Of course I then had to check his work closer to see if he was carrying our my orders or to see if the work was being done. If I wanted to discuss with him about any of the men or how they were doing their work or comment on their work Claude would go and tell the men what I said and add plenty to it. Witness Jess Lemmons, L. N. Johnston. On April 29-1945 Claude gave the men 1 hr. and 40 min. lunch hours, when 30 min. was all they were allowed. This had been going on for some time. Claude would not get his men out on time, and when I would approach him with the subject he would get mad and not answer. I gave Claude orders to work 8 hrs. a day, this was disregarded from time to time. On June 27-1945 one of the men failed to show up for work and I asked Claude to find out why and let me know. He did not make an effort to find out for me. So June 28th I sent word to the man to come in and he did, but he was sure mad, whatever Claude said to him I don't know. He was getting so he would tell the men anything but the right thing. On July 21-1945 Sent Claude and men to K. Waymen # 33 Repressuring well to do a job . When I went to check the job wasn't done. Martin and Gang hadn't been there. 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 23-1945 Sent Claude and men to clean up around flare lines on E. Hays #2 Lease. In the meanwhile I checked and found the job not done and that night I asked Claude if he had completed the Hays job and he said he had. Claude lied to me about the job being done. On August 23-1945 Called Claude in the office . I talked to him about spend- ing too much time in the Pumper Doghouse with his men . It made him mad. He started passing the buck on to me ; P. J . Martin was present. What the 3 of us talked about was supposed to be private, Claude told the men what was said at this meeting. Nov. 12-H. Brook lease , while Repairing and Replacing 4" Repressuring line. Gas was leaking by some stops , which had been closed , and the line had water in it, between the stop and the place where the line was being repaired causing the Gas to be sealed off for awhile . The welder went ahead with cutting out the bad pipe. After pipe was removed from the ditch the men were cleaning out ditch , when the gas which had pressured up behind the water blowed out caus- ing an explosion . The men were not instructed of what to expect by cutting into a line. No one was burned . This could of been a bad accident. Nov. 30-While welding a Gas Regulator in meter loop on L. Hawthorne #1 meter #2. Failure to shut off gas and vent line to atmosphere , caused a gas explosion when a plug blowed out of loop and gas ignited by welder torch ; blow- ing gasoline over meter causing $40.00 damage to meter. This could of caused a bunch of men to be burnt up. The cause of this fire was not following orders. Welder Shorty Melton. Dec. 9-While replacing 3" Gasoline line on W. T . Richardson #2 Lease I gave Claude orders to close 3" stop Gasoline line on J. Friesner lease. When he came back he said he could not close it so the whole line had to be pumped out to allow us to cut the line. When the line was repaired and pressure was back on I found that Claude had twisted off part of the stop and it was leaking. He did not tell me he had broken stop or I could of repaired it while line was empty-carelessness. On Dec. 28-1945 Claude in charge of men installed meter loops on J. P. Conull #29, also meters , and left the job without repairing meter pipping and without turning on gas to the wells. This left the clean out machine to stay at well until they knew whether well would take Gas or not . Costing the Company money while machine was not moved . Witness-Mr . Kiplinger, Production fore- man on South End. On Dec. 29-I checked wells and repaired pipping and turned Gas to the wells myself. Mr. Kiplinger was present. Jan. 4-1946 I gave Claude orders to take and distribute the men on Latural lines that were full of fluid, to pump out drips . On checking he took 4 of the men to the north end of Field, had one man with him just riding around. When I seen him about 10 A. M. I asked him if he had the Loading Rack job done and he said he had. 2 hrs . Backfilling ditch was all. He showed 6 hrs. checking air and backfilling ditch. In the afternoon his men was pumping out drips. In the afternoon I gave him orders to check the Vac lines for air. As we were short handed he had one man with him, he said he needed to take 2 men to carry small compresser . When I asked him where it was at he said he did not know. And if I wanted him to take all afternoon to find it and repair it. ( I told him just to forget it) Witnesses-Paul Cheeley and L . N. Johnston. Claude has had every opportunity to learn his work . He hasn't the ability for the job he holds and is not safety minded where other men are concerned. THE TEXAS COMPANY 891 I cannot trust Claude with the men where a job is dangerous . Claude is not reliable and cannot be depended on, I am asking for his discharge from Field service. /s/ D. O. Fivecoate. D. O. FIVECOATE. APPENDIX C SALEM, ILLINors, January 25, 1946. THE TExAs COMPANY Personal and Confidential Mr. L. K. LANEY The Texas Company Salem, Illinois Subject: JESSE RIGGS-R. E. PURSLEY Salem Plant Roustabouts-Temporary DEAR SIR : In line with our recent discussion I offer the following facts con- cerning the work of the two subject temporary employes. Sesse Riggs (ex-serviceman), was employed on October 22, 1945. Just prior to such time he had been employed for approximately three months by Dresser Engineering Company as a semi-skilled employe doing maintenance and con- struction work at the Salem plant. He was assigned to menial tasks and to all appearances, was a willing worker and recommended to us for employment by Dresser's superintendent. Since entering our service this man has been a fair worker but one that has to be shown on each and every job just what to do rather than told. It has been stated by his immediate supervisor that the man seems to be incapable of learning as he has to be shown and told again and again just how to do a job, even though he has performed the same job or a similar one previously. He is just as likely to try to screw pipe together by turning it left as he is right. This man has served the customary ninety days trial period and in the opinion of his supervisor and my Assistant Plant Foreman, has failed to qualify as a first-class roustabout. They, therefore, do not feel that they can recommend him for the full roustabout rate as a permanent employe. Such being the case it is my recommendation that the man be discharged. Mr. Pursley (ex-serviceman), was employed as a Roustabout (temporary) on October 25, 1945. His case is somewhat different and one I find hard to con- vey to you in writing. Pursley shows signs of being capable of becoming a first- class employe, but signs are about all. His work and his interest in it is less than mediocre and he has an attitude of not " giving a dam" about the safety of either the equipment he is working on, his fellow employes, himself or his job. He "hangs back" and does only just enough work to get by. His attitude and work has been practically the same during his whole period of employment. On his third day of employment I noticed Pursley's attitude and discussed it with his supervisor. The supervisor stated that he had also noticed his atti- tude and hoped to be able to change it. This same supervisor has now given up any hope of a change of his attitude or improvement in his work and will not recommend him for placing on our permanent payroll. I agree and since the man has served the customary 90 days trial period with- out qualifying, I recommend that he be discharged immediately. If further information is desired, please advise. Very truly yours, PJM/tj ( Signed ) P. J. MARTIN.