Warton Drilling Co., Inc.

WARTON DRILLING CO. 357 Warton Drilling Co., Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 826 , Petitioner. Case 16-RC-4339. May 4,1967 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election executed on July 19, 1966, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above- entitled matter on August 9, 1966, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 16, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 41 eligible voters, 32 cast valid ballots, of which 12 were for, and 20 against, the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, on August 16, 1966, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On October 14, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 16 issued an order directing that a hearing be held for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised with respect to the objections. It was further ordered that the Hearing Officer designated to conduct the hearing prepare and cause to be served on the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said issues. Pursuant to the Regional Director's order, a hearing was held at Odessa, Texas, on November 10 and 11, 1966, before Hearing Officer Reginald H. Alleyne, Jr. All parties participated and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. On December 13, 1966, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, with findings and recommendations, in which he recommended that the Petitioner's two objections be treated as a single objection and be sustained, and, accordingly, that a second election be directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer working out of the Employer's Odessa, Texas, facility, including employees working on rigs in the following Texas counties: Yoakum, Terry, Dawson, Andrews, Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland, Reeves, Ward, Crane, Upton, Reagan, Glasscock, Pecos, Gaines, Crockett, Terrell, and Martin; and Lea County, New Mexico, and including truckdrivers and helpers at the Employer's Odessa, Texas, facility, excluding office clerical employees, drillers, shop foremen, truck foremen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the objections, the hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case, and makes the following finding: The Petitioner's objections relate to speeches made by the Employer's president, Jesse Lee Warton, to assembled groups of employees 2 days prior to the election conducted herein. The hearing officer found that Warton said that if he entered into a union contract which obligated him to pay wages higher than those paid by some of the other drilling contractors, it would be difficult for him to bid successfully on jobs, and that in the event of higher costs resulting from a union victory, some oil wells would not be drilled. The hearing officer concluded that these statements, in the context of Warton's additional statement that he would try to remain in business, clearly implied to employees that the advent of the Union would pose a threat to their job security. We disagree. In our view, the Employer in the foregoing remarks did not threaten the employees' job security. I The Employer's statements, rather, set forth its economic and competitive position in the industry, and presented this information in a noncoercive manner.' Hence they were within the permissible limits of campaign propaganda. ' The hearing officer also found that the foregoing remarks 2 See Freeman Manufacturing Company, 148 NLRB 577, restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of 581-582. In view of our determination herein, we find it the Act This finding is inappropriate in a representation unnecessary to consider or pass upon the Employer's preliminary proceeding, in any event, for the reasons stated herein, we would motion to dismiss the Union's objections. not find that these remarks violated the Act. 164 NLRB No. 51 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing , we shall overrule the CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Petitioner's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.' As the Petitioner has failed to receive a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. 3 We also adopt the hearing officer's conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to establish that prior to the election the Employer's president , Jesse Lee Warton, promised the employees a wage increase if they rejected the Union It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Local 826, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.