W.C. Nabors Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of W. C. NABORS, D/B/A, W. C. NABORS COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BuiLD-
ERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.; LOCAL No. 79
III the Matter of W. C. NABORS, D/B/A, W. C. NABORS COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BuiLD-
ERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., LOCAL No.,79
Cases Nos. 15-RC-84 and 15-CA-!5.-Decided April 19, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 26, 1949, Trial Examiner David London issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal as to them. The
Trial Examiner found further that by his unfair labor practices, the
Respondent had interfered with his employees' free choice of a bar-
gaining representative, and recommended that the election held on
September 14, 1948, pursuant to the direction in Case No. 15-RC-842
be vacated and set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
1 Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
LCbairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
89 NLRB No. 4t3.
538
W. C. NABORS COMPANY 539
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are
inconsistent with the Decision and Order herein.
The March 15, 1948, Wage Increase
The Trial Examiner found that the March 15, 1948, wage increase
was granted by the Respondent in order "to induce employees to dis-
continue activities on behalf of the Union and to discourage member-
ship in the Union," as alleged in the complaint. We do not agree.
Granting this wage increase a few days after the Union began or-
ganizing makes the Respondent's motive suspect. Such suspicion does
not, however, establish that the Respondent had knowledge of the
organizational activities of the Union at that time, and the record
contains no evidence of such knowledge. We therefore find, contrary
to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent, by granting a wage in-
crease on March 15, 1948, did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
. The Respondent's Supervisors
The Trial Examiner stated in the Intermediate Report that the
Respondent had admitted that Roberson, Posey, Prothro, Segura, and
Spears were supervisors. The Respondent, however, and his wit-
nesses denied at the hearing that these five men were supervisors.
The Respondent employs 210 employees working in 3 shifts in a
plant consisting of several buildings and covering 146,000 square feet.
Each shift is in charge of a shift foreman, and the day shift also has
an assistant shift foreman; the Respondent admits that these 4
individuals are supervisors. Roberson, Posey, Prothro, Segura, and
Spears receive work assignments from the shift foremen for their
respective departments, which are engaged in various phases of the
production process. They then assign the work to, and direct the
work of, the employees in their departments. They do only a limited
amount of manual labor themselves. Some of the employees testify-
ing for the General Counsel stated that they themselves considered
these 5 individuals to be their supervisors. Plant Superintendent
Smith had given a sworn affidavit before the hearing to a Board
agent investigating these charges, in which he stated that the 5 in-