Standard Oil Co. of Cailfornia

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 153 Standard Oil Company of California, Western TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION Operations, Inc. and Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, Richmond Local No. 1-561, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-3944 November 8, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On May 31, 1967, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent has not en- gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the General Coun- sel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,' the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, except as herein modified. I ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. I On the facts presented by this record, we cannot say, as urged by the General Counsel and the Charging Party, that the maintenance and en- forcement of the Respondent's rule against adornment of the safety hats violated Section 8(a)(1) or (3), simply because the decorations in issue were union emblems The Respondent established that it had a legitimate, longstanding, and not unwarranted concern about the threat to safety posed by the use of unauthorized decorations on work hats Furthermore, the evidence shows that employees were freely permitted to wear em- blems signifying union affiliation on any part of their clothing except their safety hats. But while we agree with the Trial Examiner that the complaint should be dismissed for the foregoing reasons, we do not adopt or rely on his alternative finding that because no union organizational campaign was in progress at the time the rule was enforced, this in itself is a separate reason for finding that no protected purpose could be served by the em- ployees who wore the union decals STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID F. DOYLE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, with all parties represented by counsel, was heard by me at San Francisco, California, on January 31 and February 1, 1967, on complaint of the General Counsel and asnwer of the Respondent. I The complaint dated July 8, 1966, was based on a charge filed by the Union on February 16, 1966, and a first amended charge filed on July 7, 1966.2 The com- plaint alleged in substance that the Company had violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily suspending employees Willie F. Anderson and Danny L. Cates because they displayed emblems in the form of de- cals on their safety hats. In its answer the Company denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and alleged as an affirmative defense that for many years prior to 1966, the Company had issued to employees working in its Richmond, California, refinery, safety hats of a special design and had for many years a policy, rule, and instruction which stated that "no other painting or marking of safety hats is permitted unless approved by proper authority." The answer alleges that supervisors of the Company for good reasons pursuant to this instruction ordered employees Anderson and Cates to remove certain union decals from the safety hats supplied to each by the Company and upon the refusal of the employees to comply with the order the employees were relieved of duties for the balance of the shift without deduction from pay. At the hearing counsel for the parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings. The General Counsel and counsel for the Company have filed scholarly briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record of the case and upon my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The pleadings establish that the Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the refining, sale, and distribution of petroleum products at its Richmond, California, refinery. In the course and conduct of its busi- ness, it annually sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. It is found, therefore, that the Company at all times material herein has been an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the ' In this Decision, Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc , is referred to as the Company or the Respondent, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Richmond Local No 1-561, AFL-CIO, is referred to as thi. Union and its parent organization as the International , the General Counsel of the Board and his representa- tives at the hearing as the General Counsel; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board , and the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended, as the Act 2 All dates in this Decision are in the year 1966 unless specified other- wise 168 NLRB No. 28 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is also admitted in the pleadings that the following named persons occupy the position set opposite each name and are supervisors acting on behalf of the Com- pany within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: T. M. Sheehy, general manager, Richmond refinery; Jim Leder, superintendent; Jules Mayer, superintendent; Mervin Miller, assistant superintendent; Charles Dixon, foreman. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings likewise establish, and I find, that the Union at all times material herein has been a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Undisputed Facts The Refinery The site of the alleged unfair labor practices is the Richmond Refinery of the Company. At this city of Richmond, California, on the shore of San Francisco Bay the Company maintains and operates an oil refinery, which is reported to be the largest in the western States of the United States and one of the largest in the world. The complex of buildings and giant chemical constructions are spread over more than 3,000 acres of land. The force of employees operating the refinery is approximately 3,000 persons, which may fluctuate to some extent according to the nature of the Company's operations. In essence the refinery is a chemical laboratory operated on a vast scale with specific buildings and equip- ment to perform certain tasks which bring into being the many petrochemical products of the Company, some of which are highly volatile. From crude petroleum the refinery manufactures low volatile kerosene, automobile gasoline, aviation gasoline, and missile and rocket fuels of the highest volatility. In the primary manufacturing process, the refinery also manufactures many types of petrochemicals and such items as lubricating oils, greases, waxes, and many types of dangerous and hazardous gases. Some of the gases are intentionally manufactured, and some are the undesired but natural phenomena which result from the refining process. The refinery's safety practice booklet lists the following hazardous gases as potentially harmful if inhaled: hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ammonia, hydrofluoric acid, and petroleum gases of many varieties. The Safety Rules; the Safety Hat Issued to Employees As might be expected the safety of employees and of those coming into the refinery on business and the safety of the people who reside in neighboring communities present a problem to the Company which it has attempted to solve by a series of safety regulations. It has installed equipment and devised procedures to deal with accidents such as fire, explosion, and the leakage of harmful gases. It has issued to its employees various items of protective clothing and safety hats made of metal, commonly called "hardhats," which are designed to protect employees. Among the safety provisions is a safety scheme whereby certain portions of the refinery are specified as places in which "hard hats or safety hats must be worn by all per- sonnel." Even visitors to the refinery and those of its per- sonnel who go only occasionally into these areas are required by the safety rules to wear the type of hardhat which is issued to each employee. The Company retains ownership of these hardhats at all times but after one is is- sued to an employee he retains it until such time as he leaves the employ of the Company or until the hat is replaced for some reason. At night each man on the day shift usually places his safety hat with his work clothes or other protective covering in his locker. The initiation of the practice of issuing hardhats to its employees is an un- disputed fact in this proceeding. At the hearing, counsel for the Company produced a series of "Refinery Instruc- tion 314," beginning with one issued on December 7, 1954, and the last of the seven documents being that, dated March 10, 1966.3 The Rule At the hearing counsel for the parties stipulated that the seven documents established the inception of Refinery Instruction 14 and its subsequent amendment. The docu- ments also established the rule pertaining to the wearing of "hard" hats, and the prohibition of the Company against painting or marking the safety hats with material not "approved by proper authority." Refinery Instruction 314 as first promulgated on December 7, 1954, in per- tinent part reads as follows- PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT FOR ALL PARTS OF THE BODY HEAD PROTECTION 1. The following articles must be worn for head pro- tection, as indicated. (a) Regular Safety Hat or Cap, where there is a possibility of being struck by falling or flying objects, and there is no likelihood of contacting electrical cur- rent. Colors of Safety Hats, to be worn by certain personnel is indicated below. No other painting or marking of Safety Hats is permitted unless approved by proper authority. (1) For Safety Operators: white crown, green brim; "Safety Operator" stenciled on crown. (2) For Fire Protection personnel: white crown, red brim. (Those worn by PP&CS per- sonnel have distinguishing metal badge in front; those worn by other "Fire Fighting Organiza- tion" personnel have "Fire Dept." stenciled on crown.) (3) Plain for general use; no color identification is required. S These documents are dated as follows December 7, 1954, January 14, 1957; May I, 1959; June 9, 1959, September 28, 1962 ; January 13, 1965; and the last one dated March 10, 1966 STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 155 Thereafter at various dates, according to the stipula- tion, Refinery Instruction 314 underwent a series of amendments and in the course of time it evolved into a system of visual identification of certain classes of em- ployees by the specific colored markings placed on the hats. In 1954, distinctive visual identification on a hard- hat was used only for safety operators and fire protection personnel but as the system grew and the instruction was revised it included more and more separate classes of em- ployees with separate distinctive color markings. In the revision of the instruction in 1965 the Company added yellow stickers to the side of the hardhats which by their symbols and color designated the operating division or department in which the employee worked. In January 1966, the Company ordered the placement of a decal of the company hallmark, a red, white, and blue chevron on the front of the hardhat of all refinery employees and underneath the company hallmark a 1/2-inch "dymo" label tape with the employee's name. The testimony of company officials established the fact that at the time this controversy arose there were 3,000 company employees on the premises of the refinery and because of huge construction projects enlarging the refinery, there were approximately 2,000 employees of other companies on the property. The hardhats which the employees of the contractors wore were in some in- stances similar to the Company's and in other instances dissimilar, but the Chevron decal on the front of the hard- hat immediately identified employees of the Company as distinct from the employees of the contractors who did not display the Chevron hallmark on their hats. In addi- tion to the contractors' employees who were on the premises, there were large numbers of employees of other employers who came in the course of their business to bring material to the refinery or to take away products or to perform special repairs or services. In the refinery areas these employees of the suppliers or customers were required to wear hardhats, and in many instances their hats too, were similar to the hats worn by the company employees except for the distinctive markings. By early 1966, Refinery Instruction 314 had specific paragraphs for head protection; face and head protection; eye protection; body protection; arm protection; and pro- tection against highly corrosive and toxic chemicals. At this time, Refinery Instruction 314 listed the following markings in use for protection and identification of com- pany employees: 1. White crown, green brim, "Safety Operator" sten- ciled on crown. 2 White crown and brim, with distinguishing metal badge in front, and red "Fire Dept." sticker on each side of crown (fire protection personnel). These men are com- pany employees specially trained to fight refinery fires and should not be confused with the usual fire depart- ments in cities, etc. 3. Fluorescent red crown and brim (fire fighters). Per- sonnel specially trained as above. 4. All white (ambulance drivers). 5. White with black stripes crossing on crown (public relations representatives). 6. Metallic green crown and brim (refinery engineers). 7. Dark blue crown and brim ( equipment inspectors). 8. Dark red crown and brim (riggers). 9. Cream crown and brim (head mechanics and main- tenance district foremen). 10. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Thermal Division on each side of crown (operators in Thermal Division). 11. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Catylitic Cracking Division on each side of crown (operators in Catylitic Cracking Division). 12. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Isomax Division on each side of crown (operators in Isomax Division). 13. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Lube Oil Division on each side of crown (operators in Lube Oil Division). 14. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Light Oil Division on each side of crown (operators in Light Oil Division). 15. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Chemical Division on each side of crown (operators in Chemical Division). 16. Plain aluminum with yellow divisional identifica- tion sticker for Utilities Division on each side of crown (operators in Utilities Division). 17. Yellow plastic with yellow divisional identification sticker for appropriate division on each side of crown (designated operators working near corrosive acids). 18. Plain aluminum with Safety Engineer decal on each side of crown (safety engineers). 19. Plain aluminum (general use). 20. Orange (boilermaker welders). 21. Gray plastic (electricians). 22. Gold (safety inspector). 23. Green (motor transport employees). In this system of marking, the Company had used 14 different colors and 9 different types of identification stickers or decals in carrying out its visual identification system for company hardhats. The Union Leaflets and Letters It is the contention of the General Counsel and the Union that in the month of July the Union launched a campaign to increase its membership at the refinery. Part of this campaign was a series of leaflets, admitted in evidence, which were mailed to union members and non- members in the appropriate unit. There are 13 of these leaflets or letters which were mailed to employees between August 17, 1965, and January 8, 1966. Some of these leaflets or letters were issued a second or third time. The initial letter to the employees stated that the or- ganizing program of the Union had been temporarily inac- tive but that it was being revived. It urged members to sign up fellow employees and to have pride in the Union. Subsequent leaflets or letters stressed the importance of solidarity and stated that a series of pamphlets entitled "Did You Know" would be issued to acquaint employees with facts of the company-union relationship. The remainder of the leaflets discussed some of the aims of the Union in handling grievances and in future contracts.4 B. Testimony on Controverted Issues Dwight Horne, chairman of the Stewards Council of the Union, was called to testify, among other things, that the series of leaflets were posted on the Union's bulletin board maintained pursuant to the company-union labor agreement, but could only identify 4 of the 13 exhibits in ' The senes of leaflets and letters are G C Exhs 3(a)-3(q) 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the series as having been posted on the union bulletin board. Thomas M. Sheehy, general manager of the refinery, who was also questioned on this subject, stated that he remembered that a leaflet concerning one partticu- lar incident was posted on the union bulletin board, but he could not identify any of the exhibits as having been posted. He admitted that he knew that there were various communications posted on the bulletin board from the Union to members and employees, but that he was not aware of their particular nature. The Wearing of the Union Decal; the Discussion Con- cerning the Decals; and the Suspension of Two Union Officers Gale T. Jacobs, secretary-treasurer of the Union, testified without contradiction that during the latter part of December 1965 the officers of the Union received from the International and distributed to their members in the refinery about 500 union decals. These decals are the emblem of the Union, and are round and about 2 inches in diameter. The union officers told the members to put the decals on windshields, lunch buckets, hardhats, or things of that nature. It is undisputed that on January 19, 1966, Thomas M. Sheehy, general manager of the refinery, issued an order which was posted on the bulletin boards that notified all employees that the Company desired to have the Chevron hallmark on all employees' safety hats on the center front with its bottom edge three-quarters of an inch above the break for the brim. Underneath the hallmark, the employee's name was to be placed with self-adhesive "dymo" tape. This directive included the following, "Please note that unauthorized colors, decorations, or in- signia are not to be placed on safety hats. Refinery In- struction 314 is being revised to include the Chevron de- cals and division identification decals as authorized markings." At approximately this time, Jacobs, the secretary-trea- surer of the Union, phoned Cannon, senior employee relations representative of the Company, and asked him if the bulletin concerning the placement of the Company's hallmark and the banning of unauthorized material on the hats applied to the union insignia. Cannon answered that the union insignia on the hardhat was not authorized. Jacobs asked why the Company had decided that unauthorized material should not be worn on the hard- hats. Cannon replied that the Company wanted to identi- fy the property of the Company by the decals and to identify the wearers as employees of the Company. Jacobs replied that the union members had no intention of claiming the hardhats as their property by the decals, but merely wanted to show their affiliation with the Union. The men then discussed the fact that other kinds of material had been placed on the hardhats, such as panic buttons, wisecracks, pornographic pictures, etc. Jacobs said that the Union did not condone the wearing of such things on the hardhat, but felt that union members had a right to identify themselves with the Union by wearing a union decal on the hat. Jacobs asked if an employee could buy his own hardhat and place the union decals on it. Cannon said that he would check on that, and a little later he phoned back to Jacobs, saying that an employee could not buy and wear his own hardhat, that the Company required that he wear the hardhat provided by the Com- pany. Jacobs further testified that on February 16, 1966, Sheehy, general manager , and Le Duc, of the Company, met with Jacobs in Sheehy's office. At this meeting, Jacobs told Sheehy that the negotiating committee of the Union understood that the president of the Local was going to be confronted on his return to work with a de- mand that he remove the union decal from his hat, and the president of the Union and the negotiating committee of the Union had agreed that if the union president was going to be "attacked" in this manner, that the Company would have to "attack" them all in the same manner, because they were going to back up the president and they would all refuse to remove the union decal. Jacobs asked the management representative for time to "iron the thing out." On the next morning Jacobs met with Sheehy and Le Duc again and handed to Sheehy a copy of the original charge herein, which had been filed by the Union with the Regional Office, Region 20 (San Francisco), on the preceding day, February 16. Jacobs said that the Union wanted to avoid a confrontation in the matter. Sheehy replied that Le Duc would tell department heads not to seek a showdown in the matter, but if a confrontation oc- curred he would instruct the foreman to offer to "trade hats with the employees," and the meeting ended on this note. In the afternoon, Jacobs again saw Sheehy and told Sheehy that he had learned that Willie F. Anderson, pres- ident of the Union, and Danny Cates, chairman of the negotiating committee of the Union, had been suspended, and Jacobs asked why the understanding reached that morning had not been kept. Sheehy expressed amaze- ment, so they both went to Sheehy's office. Sheehy con- ferred with Le Duc privately and then he told Jacobs that the Company had complied with the agreed-upon procedure. Jacobs left at that point. Jacobs also testified without contradiction that most union members paid their dues by the checkoff, so the Company knew about increases in membership. In the course of his examination by union counsel, Jacobs testified that he did not mention the Union's or- ganizational campaign in any of the discussions he had with management representatives in regard to the removal of the union decals. The Suspension of Cates and Anderson Danny Cates, the chairman of the negotiating commit- tee and an officer of the Union, testified that at one time he had painted his hardhat yellow and that at another time he placed a picture of Mickey Mouse on it. When the union decals were issued he placed one on the front of his hat, but later changed the position of the decal so that he had a union decal on each side of his hat over his ear. He first learned that he might have trouble with the manage- ment about wearing the union decal on February 5 when Dixon, his plant foreman, told him that no unauthorized material was permitted on hardhats. Dixon said that no one was pushing the instruction at that time and until they did he wouldn't say anything about Cates' wearing the de- cal. However, on February 7, Dixon came to Cates and showed him a letter which said that the hardhats were to be cleaned up and all unauthorized material taken off them. Dixon then said, "I expect you to adhere to the terms of this letter." Cates inquired what would happen if he refused to remove the decals from his hat. Dixon replied that the Company would take disciplinary action against him. Cates heard no more of the matter until February 17, when Carlock, a foreman, called Cates from his post and STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA told him that he had been instructed to ask Cates to remove his decals. Cates told Carlock that he wished he would not ask him to do that at this time, because a meet- ing had been scheduled for Monday with management to try to settle the issue without anyone being confronted. Cates asked Carlock if he would check with the assistant superintendent , Mr. Miller, before he asked him to remove the decals, and Carlock said that he would, and left. About 1:20 p.m., Cates received a phone call from the head operator , Ralph Freeman , who directed him to go to the plant superintendent's office with Anderson, the president of the Union. When Cates and Anderson reached the office of Leder, plant superintendent, Ander- son was admitted to Leder's office first and then Cates. When Anderson emerged from the superintendent's of- fice he told Cates that he had been suspended. Cates was then ushered into Leder's office. Inside were Foreman Carlock, Miller, and Superintendent Leder. Leder said Cates had been summoned to his office for the purpose of asking Cates to remove his decals . Leder then said, "I am asking you to take those decals off." Cates replied that he couldn't at this time , and asked Leder if he would check with General Manager Sheehy as there had been arrange- ments made for a meeting the following Monday to try to settle the issue amicably . Leder replied that he was not concerned with any arrangements between the Union and Sheehy, that he was running the lube oil division and he was asking Cates to take off the decals. Cates told him that he could not at that time. Leder replied , that in that case Cates was suspended with pay. Leder told Cates that he had been treated in the same manner as had Anderson. Just before Cates left the room , Leder told him that there were some yellow hats in the filing cabinet in the office, and if Cates would take one of them he could, and he wouldn't be suspended . Cates told him that he couldn't do it at that time. Cates testified that on the following morning he returned to work at 7 a.m. He returned to work due to a telephone call which resulted from a conference of the In- ternational representative of the Union, Secretary-Trea- surer Jacobs, and Sheehy , general manager of the refinery. It is undisputed that on this morning , February 18, Anderson and Cates returned to work wearing the union decals on their hats. Anderson and Cates were then asked to exchange their hardhats containing the Union's decals for two new hardhats which did not contain the union decals but did contain the Chevron hallmark. They complied with this request and returned to work. Willie F. Anderson, president of the Union, testified that on February 17 he was wearing his safety hat with union decals on both , the right and left sides. Foreman Carlock came to him and told him that he had been in- structed to ask Anderson to remove the union decals. An- derson replied that he wished Carlock would not ask him to remove them at that time. Carlock replied that his or- ders were to, "Go see Anderson and order him to remove the decals." Anderson asked Carlock to wait until February 21 when the Union and Mr. Sheehy had scheduled a meeting. Carlock said that his orders were specific and he had to ask Anderson to remove the decals. Anderson asked if he could wear a safety hat of his own. Carlock replied in the negative. Then Anderson asked Carlock if he could exchange his hat . Carlock said he could not. Later in the afternoon Anderson and Cates 157 were summoned to Superintendent Leder's office. Ac- cording to Anderson, Leder told Anderson that he had been asked to take the decals off his hat and had refused and that he (Leder) would have to suspend him. As An- derson left the office, Leder said he had a few days to think it over and to call him if Anderson decided to remove the decals. The Incident of Employee Horne Employee Dwight Horne , who holds the offices of committeeman and chairman of the Stewards Council, also encountered difficulty concerning his wearing of the union decals but he was not suspended . Home testified that sometime prior to the issuance of the union decals somebody had written the words , "road runner" on his hardhat. Also, on another occasion someone had put the words "OCAW Mounted Police " on his hat.5 No one ever told him to remove any of these things from his hat. When the union decals were issued he put one decal on the front of his hat and one on the back. During the first week in January , Joe Keck , his shift foreman, in a conver- sation said that he felt the business of union decals was kind of silly, with the Company telling the employees to take the decals off their hats and the employees saying that they wouldn't. Keck told Horne he was going to give him a Chevron decal and if Horne wanted to put it on his hat he could , but Keck wasn't going to order him to do so. Horne testified that on February 16 he was summoned to the office of Jules Mayer , chemical division superin- tendent. When he reached Mayer 's office, Mayer told him that the decal situation was getting out of hand , and that he would like Horne to take his decal off and go out into the plant and tell the rest of the employees in the division to take theirs off. Mayer said he asked Horne to do that, because Horne was recognized as the leader among the union men and they would probably follow his exam- ple. Home asked Mayer if Mayer realized his position, and had heard that the negotiating committee that morn- ing had taken the position that if action was taken against the president of the Union in the matter of the decals, the Company would be required to take the same action against all the members of the committee because they had decided on a joint course of action. Mayer said that he had heard that and asked Horne if he was aware that the Union had filed charges with the Regional Office of the Board. Mayer said that the decals would have to come off the hats and he didn 't want to have trouble about it. Horne then asked if Mayer would wait either until the Board rendered a decision or the scheduled meeting with Sheehy on the matter occurred. Mayer replied that he would not wait , that the matter was far too pressing, and he told Horne that he would give him 24 hours to think about it , with pay. On the following day, Mayer phoned Home at his home and asked him if he had made any decision in the matter. Home said that it was his day off, and he didn't have to be at work until Saturday, and he was going to think about it until then . On Saturday, Horne went to work and about 10 o'clock in the morning the foreman in the plant came to him and asked Horne to step outside . The foreman asked him if he was ready to take the decal off his hat and he replied in the negative. Then the foreman asked him , if the foreman got him a new hat would he exchange hats? Horne replied that the 5 OCAW are the initials of the Union. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hat was the Company's property, and if it wanted to reclaim it , the Company could , so the foreman went to the office and brought back a new hat and took Horne's old hat away with him. The Many Emblems, Insignia, and Buttons Worn by the Men Without Objection by the Company All the employee-witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for the Company as to whether there were not numerous insignia and emblems of the Union which the men wore in the plant without objection by the Company ever having been made . Horne readily admitted that he and the other stewards of the Union routinely and daily wore a steward 's button of the Union in the refinery. Horne admitted he had a union decal on his briefcase and on his lunch bucket which he brought into the refinery on a daily basis. He also stated that he wore a large union in- signia made of cloth on the back of his coveralls. This union insignia is of the type worn on the back of bowling shirts and is exactly 8-1/2 inches in diameter.6 Home said that many of the union members also wore a pencil clip on their coveralls which displayed the union insignia. This insignia was about three quarters of an inch or button-size in diameter. Horne stated that no one in management had ever objected to the men wearing or displaying any of these insignia in the plant , except the decals on the safety hat. Horne also admitted that he knew the rule forbade unauthorized decorations on the hardhats but he knew that the rule had not been enforced. In the course of his cross -examination, Horne also testified that there was a "continuous campaign" to enlist new employees in the Union and to enlist those men who were working in the plant , and who had not yet joined the Union. Anderson, president of the Union, in the course of his cross-examination , stated that he had seen safety hats painted different colors by the men and decorated with such things as Chiquita Banana stickers , cartoons, num- bers, etc. He knew that there was a rule stating that unauthorized decorations could not be worn on the hard- hats, but he did not know what was authorized, and he made no inquiry about the rule, even when the question arose between management and the Union . When asked what the purpose of wearing the insignia was, he stated that the decal was to identify the members to nonmem- bers within the plant. On cross-examination , Cates also testified that the stewards of the Union wore a steward's button and that many of the men wore the pencil clip with the Union's in- signia on the pencil clip. Many of them had union decals on their lunch boxes and several of them wore the large 8- 1/2 inch bowling-like emblem on the back of their coveralls. He also admitted that he knew of no instance in which any of the employees were told to take off any union insignia, except the union decal on the safety hat. The General Counsel also called as witnesses some members of other unions . Neil Anderson, of Carpenters Local 642, testified that his union had 45 members in the refinery. At one time many of them had worn an emblem 6 Some witnesses testified that this union insignia worn by some em- ployees on the back of their coveralls was 9 - 12 inches in diameter This testimony is incorrect One of the cloth emblems which is the seal of the Union is in evidence as Resp Exh 6 It is exactly 8-1/2 inches in diame- on their hardhats of the United States and hands clasped; this was an emblem which had been placed on United States overseas aid shipments . He had also seen cartoons and numbers worn on hardhats . He estimated that about 4 percent of the men employed in the refinery had unauthorized decorations on their hats. Robert Hammond , Boilermakers Union , testified that his union had 250-300 men employed in the refinery. He had seen safety hats marked with the numbers 007 and had seen the Machinists emblem displayed on some hard- hats. Ransome F. Cannon, Jr., testified that he is a pipefitter and a member of Plumbers Local 159. There are approxi- mately 160 pipefitters employed at the refinery of which approximately 80 are members . He has seen the Machin- ists decal and the Union 's decal and many different painted markings on the hardhats in the past. Gilbert L . Hail, chief steward and a member of the ex- ecutive board of the International Association of Machin- ists, testified that his union had approximately 150 mem- bers in the refinery and that many of them wore the Machinists emblem on the front of their hats. He esti- mated the size of this emblem at 5-1/2 inches in diameter. These emblems were worn up to February of this year. He testified that in February one of the foremen asked him for his hardhat and when it was returned to him it was a new one with the company hallmark on it and his name under the Chevron sticker. He asked why the Company gave him a new hat and his foreman told him that "they couldn't put the Chevron sticker on it so they had to get me a new one." The Testimony of Company Witnesses Thomas M. Sheehy, general manager of the Richmond refinery, called as a witness for the Company , testified that Refinery Instruction 314 had contained a prohibition against unauthorized markings on hardhats for many years. At that point, counsel for the parties agreed to the stipulation previously set forth on the original promulga- tion of Refinery Instruction 314, and successive amend- ments. Sheehy also identified a booklet entitled "General Instructions and Safe Practices " issued by the Company to each employee , when the employee began employ- ment. This booklet had an imprint of the employee's name and contained general instructions for his employ- ment. On page 4, this booklet states to the employee, "You are expected to be familiar with all written Instruc- tions, Standards and Daily Orders that concern your job. After an absence you should promptly read any material that was issued while you were away." 7 Sheehy testified that at each control room in the refinery or at a central lo- cation in each department an employee 's manual was maintained in which all instructions , standards , and or- ders were filed and maintained on a current basis for reference by all supervisors and employees. Sheehy testified that the last revision of Refinery In- struction 314 was initiated by receipt of a letter from N. T. Bogert , vice president of manufacturing of the Com- pany, dated August 27, 1965, which suggested placement ter The smaller decal is 2 inches in diameter Both insignia are the seal of the Union portraying oil derricks , oil tanks, and electrons , with the name of the Union around the perimeter of the circle ' This booklet is Resp Exh. 3. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 159 of the Chevron hallmark on safety hats which was a procedure followed in other refineries.8 After receipt of this letter, a routine meeting of management personnel, held September 28, 1965, on the subject of safety, discussed this and other safety measures, and initiated the placement of the hallmark on the hardhats. The minutes of this meeting have the following entry. IV. CHEVRON DECALS ON SAFETY HATS. To implement N. T. Bogert letter of 8-27-65, Secre- tary was directed to work with Training Section and Division Heads to develope plan for use of Chevron insignia on all safety hats.9 Sheehy testified that he first learned of a possible incident in_regard to the hardhats on the evening of February 16, when Jacobs phoned him at home and said that he had heard a rumor that when Anderson and Cates came to work, they would be confronted with the instruction, if they were wearing their hardhats with the union decal. Sheehy said he told Jacobs he would tell the supervisors to soft-pedal the situation until they had a chance to work out compliance with the rule, except if the men took ac- tion in defiance of the Company. In that event, the Com- pany would be forced to take disciplinary action against the men involved. Sheehy further testified, that on the next morning, he, Le Duc, and Jacobs met and again discussed the situa- tion. Jacobs asked what action would be taken if the men defied the Company's supervisors. Sheehy told him that if forced the Company would take disciplinary action. They all agreed to go slow and he told Jacobs he would pass the word to supervisors to take no aggressive action in the matter for a time, but Jacobs again asked if the Company would take action if, the rule was defied. Sheehy again replied that in that event, the supervisors would be backed up. Jacobs said that the wearing of the decal was a matter of pride with some men and if the rule was enforced too abruptly a "sort of minor rebellion" might take place which would be embarrassing to both the Union and the Company. Jacobs did not mention any union organizing campaign in connection with the decals. The final agreement of Jacobs, Sheehy, and Le Duc was that the management officials would pass the word to the supervisors and foremen to treat the whole situation with kid gloves and not provoke any incident. Sheehy attended the morning meeting of supervisors on February 17 and told them the substance of the union-management un- derstanding. Sheehy testified that the Company had two reasons for desiring the placement of the company hallmark on the hardhats: (1) The Company wanted its employees readily identifiable by the hallmark, because there were approxi- mately 2,000 employees of other companies on the refinery property and the Company sought to restrict its employees to their places of work and restrict the em- ployees of the other companies from wandering around the refinery, in places where they had no business. Also, (2) the Company had its own trained firefighting force who could tell from the insignia on each man's hat, which one was capable of rendering assistance in, for example, the chemical or lube plant, and which men would know where and how to turn off or turn on certain valves, for gases, oils, gasolines, etc. Each of the employees was a specialist to some extent in his department. In an emer- gency the trained firefighters knew who was capable of performing certain tasks. Sheehy said the Company felt that unauthorized decorations cut down the visibility of the Company's distinctive identifying markings. Sheehy testified flatly that during conversations with union representatives regarding the hardhats that no one claimed or said that the Union was engaged in an organiz- ing campaign, and therefore did not want to remove the decals for that reason. W. A. Cannon testified that he holds the position of senior employee relations representative at the refinery and he is assistant to the personnel manager, which gives him general responsibility in all the company-employee labor relations activities. Among his duties is the in- vestigation and adjustment of grievances with union and company personnel. Cannon identified an exhibit which shows a picture of the refinery and explained its operation in general. He stated that this document was prepared for presentation to visitors to the refinery such as school chil- dren, service clubs, and interested groups. From the document Cannon identified the mass areas in which hardhats were required to be worn by the rules of the Company. He also explained many of the safety features and protective gear furnished to the employees who did particular jobs such as safety glasses, safety clothing, par- ticular clothing which was nonconductive of electricity, etc. Cannon stated that in addition to the Union the Com- pany had at the refinery seven other unions with whom it had labor relations. He corroborated the testimony of Sheehy as to the working of the safety system and he out- lined at great length the different markings for each type of employee in the plant; these have been set forth previ- ously under the heading "Undisputed Facts." He ex- plained that visual identification of certain employees is needed in case of emergency, such as riggers who work in crews and are especially trained to handle large pieces of equipment. As another example of specialists and their designation he explained that the "yellow cap" designated those employees who were exposed to, and experienced in, the handling of corrosive chemicals and acids. Cannon testified that the only sure way the Company had of identifying an employee was by the hallmark on the front of his hat and the departmental markings on the side. Cannon also explained that there was one hardhat in the refinery which was unique which was called the "gold hat." Each week this hat was assigned to a qualified craftsman who spent the next 2 weeks as a safety inspec- tor traveling any place in the refinery to inspect the possi- bilities of fire, accident, or other emergency. This hat is marked "safety inspector" and by virtue of the hat the employee had access to any place in the refinery. When he finished his tour of inspection he furnished an overall report on his findings to the safety authorities of the Com- pany. Cannon testified that most of the union stewards of the various unions wore steward buttons. In some of the par- ticular crafts the employees wore a button which in- dicated that their payment of dues was current. He had seen decals of both the Machinists Union and the Union N This letter is Resp Exh 5 ' This minute is Resp Exh 4 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on lunch buckets, the windshield of automobiles, brief- cases, etc. He had observed the 8-1/2 inch sunburst bowling type of union insignia worn by various members of the Union in various places in the refinery. Cannon testified that he is the person who investigates violations of company rules which involve the members of the various unions, and in his experience no one had ever been told to remove any of these insignia, except the union insignia on the hardhats only. In his experience he had dealt with violations of the rule against having unauthorized material on hardhats. The most prevelant violation was one involving pornographic or distasteful or vulgar decorations. There had been several of these, the naked woman type of thing, which the Company asked the men to remove because many of the visitors to the refinery were school children on educational tours or women from community groups. Cannon also stated that on an occasion in 1959 and 1960, the Company had been forced to take action against some employees, because rank-and-file em- ployees had painted their hats the colors of supervisory employees which confused many persons. To correct these violations the hats which the employees had painted were exchanged for new hats with the proper markings. Cannon corroborated the testimony of Sheehy that the program for putting the Chevron hallmark on the front of the safety hats originated because of the letter of Bogert. The safety committee sought to insure uniformity of the placement of the decal by ordering that it be on the front of the hat and that the other identifying marks be on the side and Instruction 314 was changed to accomplish this program. Cannon identified two typical hardhats, one which was exchanged by W. F. Anderson, president of the Union, and a second one by an unidentified person. On cross-examination, Cannon admitted readily that he knew how many persons in each union had signed checkoff authorizations because these documents were kept in his department. He said the only way he knew who was a union member was by the checkoff authoriza- tion cards which were kept on file in his office. He readily admitted that he was aware that from August of 1965 to February 1966 that the Union had increased the number of employees who were on checkoff. He said that he was not aware of any particular organizing campaign put on by the Union. He explained that the unions were always trying to recruit new employees as they came on the job and those employees were working but had not yet joined the Union. He said that these efforts were common to all the unions. Cannon was asked if he could produce the or- ders for the placement of the order for the company de- cals. He said that he could, and it was produced, but the General Counsel did not choose to put it in evidence. The above narrative of testimony is not designed to be an exhaustive treatise; it is merely a summary of the highlights of the testimony and documentary evidence presented by counsel for the parties. All testimony and all documents presented have been considered by me in making my concluding findings. Because some facet of the case has not been mentioned in this summary does not mean that it has not been carefully considered. Concluding Findings There is a minimum of conflict in the testimony of the sets of witnesses presented by the General Counsel and the Respondent. I credit fully General Manager Sheehy and Senior Labor Relations Representative Cannon. Both of these men testified in a forthright and candid fashion. In general, I also credit the testimony of the wit- nesses presented by the General Counsel such as Jacobs, Cates, Anderson, and Home, except on two features of their testimony. They were all fair and precise in their testimony as to the various meetings of management and union representatives prior to the suspension of Cates and Anderson. However, when Jacobs testified as to the importance of the alleged union organizing campaign, his testimony became very general, unspecific, and unper- suasive. Some of the other employee-witnesses, notably Horne, tried to explain why it was impossible for them to be informed of Instruction 314, but at that point the testimony also lost much of its reliability. It appeared patent to me that the witnesses were consciously trying to inflate the routine conduct of union officials in trying to recruit members into the Union into some kind of special, large-scale organizing campaign. The testimony falls short of the mark. In his testimony, W. A. Cannon stated that the unions were routinely engaged in a continuous ef- fort to sign up new employees and to sign up those who were employed but who had not yet joined the Union. In his testimony Horne also admitted that the campaign to enlist members was a continuous effort. This effort on the part of the General Counsel's witnesses to build the rou- tine conduct of the Union into a "campaign" is clearly exposed by the undisputed fact that in all the meetings and discussions, which occurred between representatives of management and the important officers of the Union, not one union representative claimed at any conference, that the Union did not want to remove the decals from the safety hats because the Union was engaged in an organiz- ing campaign. The union representatives asserted in these conferences that the men "had pride in the Union em- blem," did not want to deface the emblem by "scraping" it off the hats, and that the union members wished to identify their fellow workers, both union and nonunion. But, no representative ever claimed that the Union had an organizational campaign in progress at that time, which would be adversely affected by taking off the union de- cals. From all the evidence, I conclude that the "Union campaign" was more fancied then real and was an af- terthought seized upon as a justification for refusing the Company's reasonable request to remove the decals. Some of the General Counsel's witnesses were guilty of some slanting of their testimony in regard to the fact that they knew there was a company rule which forbade unauthorized adornment of the hardhats. One witness stated that the rule was lost in the operating manual of the refinery and compared it with trying to find a specific passage in the Bible. In most large organizations, whether they be governmental, industrial, or mercantile, there is a set of written rules for the guidance of supervisors and employees which is usually called operating instructions, or employees' manual , and one of the hackneyed expres- sions used to designate this volume is "the Bible." Em- ployees are told usually that, "this is the Bible for their in- structions," and usually they are volumes of many pages, but employees either immediately or in the course of time learn those portions of the manual, which affect their jobs such as standing orders, or daily routine procedures, and they learn to refer to the "Bible" on questions which are unusual. Some of the employees readily admitted a general knowledge of the instructions governing hardhats even if they were not acquainted with specific details of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 161 the rule. From all the evidence I must conclude that they all knew, at least in a general way, that the safety hat was not to be covered with unauthorized decorations. Except on these two points, I deem the testimony of the em- ployees reliable and I credit it. With the conflicts of testimony resolved as stated above, we may turn our attention to the main question presented by the case. The General Counsel in his brief places heavy reliance on a line of cases10 which seem to hold that the wearing of union insignia at work is an un- conditional and absolute right of an employee under Sec- tion 7. Counsel for the Respondent places his reliance in the Decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Harrah's Club, 337 F.2d 177, 179, which states a modification of the older cases. In Harrah's Club, supra, the Ninth Circuit wrote as follows: The Supreme Court has held that the wearing of union buttons comes under the heading of "other concerted activities." However, we do not think that the Supreme Court intended to erect this into a rule which makes the wearing of union buttons per se a guaranteed right. We think there must be evidence of a purpose protected by the act-i.e., collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection. . The Board has cited several cases to show that the wear- ing of union buttons is a right guaranteed by the sec- tion 7, but it has cited no case where there was not at least some evidence of a purpose which it is the pol- icy of the act to protect. [Emphasis supplied.] At a later point in the decision the court pointed out that the record failed to show that the wearing of union buttons by the employees was part ofany concerted cam- paign to organize the employees , to promote collective bargaining , or to gain better hours, wages, or working conditions . I find that the same is true here . The em- ployees at Harrah 's Club in the prior case , as the em- ployees here, were already organized, the Employer and the Union for many years had maintained collective-bar- gaining agreements and there appears to have been no in- harmonious relations between the parties at the time that this controversy first arose . Furthermore , there is no evidence in this case that the wearing of the decals on the safety hats was in any way directly connected with the Union's routine procedure of trying to sign up new em- ployees and former employees . Thus the evidence is void of any connection between the display of union decals on the safety hats and the Union 's routine procedures to en- list members , or any other purpose protected by Section 7 of the Act. As previously mentioned , none of the union officers who were called by the General Counsel testified that the display of the decals had anything to do with the Union's organizing efforts and none of them mentioned the Union's organizing efforts as a reason for their reluctance to remove the decals . Therefore , upon the authority of the court's decision in Harrah's Club, supra, I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish that the display of the union decals was for a purpose pro- tected by Section 7 and that therefore the Company vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by its prohibition against the display of the decals on the employees ' safety hats. Furthermore , as the entire evidence is considered, the unrealities and the impracticalities of the General Coun- sel's contention come clearly into focus. Here, there is abundant proof that the rule prohibiting the wearing of the union decals on the hardhats had no effect of interfering with or restraining the employees in the exercise of their statutory right to organize. Here the Company prohibited the wearing of the union decals in only one place - on the Company's safety hats. The witnesses presented by the General Counsel all testified that members of the Union displayed the union decal in the refinery on their lunch buckets, briefcases, pencils, and automobile windshields. Also, the union stewards wore their customary union stewards' buttons or badges. In addition, many of the union members wore the 8-1/2 inch diameter cloth em- blem on the back of their shirts or coveralls. This is a large brightly colored seal of the Union, which is com- monly referred to as a "sunburst" emblem, which is about the size which baseball players wear on their shirts, and which can be recognized at a considerable distance. All the officers of the Union who testified admitted that com- pany officials never forbade them to wear these insignia. With the Company permitting all of these various sizes and kinds of insignia to be worn , it cannot be maintained that the Company's rule prohibiting the wearing of decals on the safety hat deprived the employees of the right to identify themselves with the Union for purposes of or- ganizing other employees. Here, the Company's rule limiting the decoration of its safety hats only distinguishes this case from some cases in which the employer imposed a severe limitation on the size or number of union insignia which employees could wear." Certainly, the rule in this case did not restrain or interfere with any employee's right to show his allegiance to other employees under Section 7 of the Act. Consideration of all the evidence also establishes that the Company had well-founded and legitimate business reasons for the prohibition of the decals on the safety hats. The United States Supreme Court in Republic A via- tion Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 797-798 (1945), stated that it was the task of the Board to work out a balance of conflicting rights under Section 8(a)(1) and the rights of employers to manage their businesses efficiently and safely, and find: ... an adjustment between the undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees under the Wagner Act and the equally undisputed right of em- ployers to maintain discipline in their establishments. Like so many others, these rights are not unlimited in the sense that they can be exercised without re- gard to any duty which the existence of rights in others may place upon employer or employee. Also, in Fabri-tek, Inc. (supra), the Board stated that in determining whether an employer has lawfully restricted the wearing of union buttons, "what is basically involved in each case arising in this area is the necessity of striking a proper adjustment between conflicting rights against the background of particular fact situations." Here the rights which must be balanced are the un- disputed right of employees to identify themselves as union members for the purpose of organizing their fellow 10 Republic Aviation Corporation v N L R.B , 324 U.S 793 (1945), Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 137 NLRB 1484, enfd. 318 F.2d 545 (C A 5, 1963), Harrah's Club, 143 NLRB 1356; Webb Furniture Cor- poration, 158 NLRB 102, Serv-Air, Inc, 161 NLRB 382 11 Fabri-tek, Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1623 , enforcement denied 352 F 2d 577 (C A 8, 1965), Serv-Air, Inc, 161 NLRB 382 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees and the equally undisputed right of the Com- pany to control its property and to maintain an effective spot identification system in the interest of the safety of all employees, the preservation of the Company's proper- ty, and the safety of the community in which the refinery is located. Here the rights of many persons are involved because of the serious danger which attends all such highly volatile manufacturing operations at this refinery. The safe management of such a large operation is a heavy responsibility on the Company which it may not shirk. As the court said in Harrah's Club, supra, in regard to a similar decision of management: This is a valid exercise of business judgment, and it is not the province of the Board or of this court to substitute its judgment for that of management so long as the exercise is reasonable and does not inter- fere with a protected purpose. It appears from a consideration of all the evidence that the General Counsel has failed to prove that the Com- pany's rule banning all unauthorized decoration of hard- hats was discriminatorily motivated to discourage union membership or the enlistment of members into the Union. In cases such as this the crux of the situation is the "true purpose or real motive" of the employer. In N.L.R.B. v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 287-288, the Court stated that, where as here, "the tendency to discourage union mem- bership is comparatively slight, and the employer's con- duct is reasonably adapted to achieve legitimate business ends or to deal with business exigencies, we enter into an area where the improper motivation of the employers must be established by independent evidence." In this case the General Counsel asks that an improper motive on the part of the Company or union animus be concluded from knowledge attributed to the Company, which was not established at the hearing. It is true that the Union gained some additional checkoff authorizations about this time and that the 30-day escape period in the labor- management agreement between the parties became ef- fective on approximately February 15, but these circum- stances are a flimsy foundation to support a finding that the Company was motivated by union animus or acted because it faced the Union's growing strength. In view of the number of employees in the unit, approximately 1,500, an increase of 15-18 checkoff authorizations must be considered negligible. In this connection it must be re- membered that in this entire record there is not one iota of evidence that any company official, supervisor, or representative made one statement which was disparag- ing or critical of the Union, its officers, or its members. In the light of all the evidence in this case, improper or unlawful motivation of the Company simply cannot be found. RECOMMENDED ORDER For the reasons stated, I find that the Company's con- duct in maintaining the prohibition against unauthorized adornment of the safety hats is not a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and the Company's conduct in suspending Willie F. Anderson and Danny Cates is not a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Therefore, I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the Company has committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety.