Santa Fe Drilling Co.

SANTE FE DRILLING COMPANY Santa Fe Drilling Company and Alaska Petroleum Crafts Council and International Union of Petrole- um Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA-3324-1, 19-CA-3328,19-CA-3470,19-RC-385 1, and 19-RM-598 June 15, 1970 ORDER DENYING MOTION By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On May 2 , 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent, Santa Fe Drilling Company, violated Section 8(a)(1) by threats and coercive statements to em- ployees and Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) by discrimina- torily discharging employees because of their union activity . The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to reinstate and make whole the em- ployees discriminatorily discharged or laid off. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition for review of the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement of its Order. The court enforced the Board 's Order in its entirety , except for the finding that Respondent un- lawfully discharged employee Barefield. With respect to Barefield , the court remanded the case to the Board for its determination as to whether or not it saw fit to draw inferences from the record that Supervisor Roady who discharged Barefiled had knowledge of Barefield 's union activities and that Respondent's discharge of Barefield was based on such union activities.2 On February 3, 1970, the Board issued a Supple- mental Decision and Order3 in accordance with the court's remand . Based on inferences drawn from the record as a whole, we reaffirmed our adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that Barefield was discriminatorily discharged and our Order that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." Thereafter, on March 20, 1970, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Board 's Supplemental Decision and Order. The ' 171 NLRB No 27 2 Santa Fe Drilling Company v NLRB , 416 F 2d 725 (C A 9) 3 180 NLRB 1049 361 Respondent also filed a brief in support thereof, which has been carefully considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board having duly considered the matter, for the reasons set forth below, finds the reasons ad- vanced by the Respondent in its motion insufficient to cause the withdrawal of our Supplemental Decision and Order and to now dismiss the com- plaint with regard to the discharge of Barefield. The thrust of the contentions raised by the Respondent in its Motion for Reconsideration is that our bases for inferring that Respondent knew of Barefield 's union activity at the time he was discharged and for inferring that such discharge was motivated by union animus are not valid. The Respondent further questions whether such knowledge by Supervisor Blair in this regard and statements by tool pusher Roady and Blair indicat- ing opposition to unionism , which we relied on in our Supplemental Decision , even if directed at Barefield, are relevant or have probative value. As pointed out in our Supplemental Decision, Respondent 's knowledge of union activities may be inferred from the small size of the work force and the nature of the off-shore oil drilling operation, as well as from Blair's express statement. From the na- ture of the operation we find it not only reasonable to infer that little in the way of union activity or sympathy, or even suspected union activity or sym- pathy, on the part of any employees escaped the notice of its supervisors , but also to infer that the individual supervisors had an antiunion attitude toward the employees.4 Thus, we find it significant that Supervisor Blair spoke to Barefield individually in the pit area a few weeks before the election , discussed the pending election , and told Barefield that Blair did not think that there was any need for a union and a union had never helped anybody in the oil fields . Contra- ry to the interpretation which the Respondent would place upon Barefield's response , we find that Barefield expressed no sympathy with Blair's views, but rather indicated that he had a union card in his "hip pocket right at the time." We view such response , not as "totally equivocal," but as an affir- mative lack of enthusiasm for Blair's antiunion views and as the response of an employee who was not unfavorable to the union. 4In reaffirming his view that Barefield was unlawfully discharged, Member Brown finds it unnecessary to draw any inferences from the small size of Respondent's work force and the nature of Its operation 183 NLRB No. 44 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We also find significant that soon thereafter Roady advised Barefield that a union was not necessary and that "you [have] got a good job," and on the day of the election, soon after the Board agent who conducted the election left, Roady told a small group of employees, including Barefield, who were in the recreation room, "All right you sons of bitches, you voted for this union From now on one man will go after coffee and there won't be no other breaks. You will work from 6:00 to 6:00," and "You will have lunch with one glove off." Finally, we attach high significance to Blair's warning to Barefield and Gardner, not long after the election and the above incidents, in which he castigated those who voted for the Union and in- dicated that he was going to run every one of them off the job, "and you two are going to be first." We do not believe that Blair's statement can be dismissed as a mere figure of speech. As previously found by the Board and affirmed by the court, Col- lins and Gordon were then discriminatorily discharged and after this statement Gardner too was discriminatorily discharged. The inescapable import of Blair's statement was that the Respondent intended to rid itself of union adherents or em- ployees it considered union adherents and that at ' See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc, 181 NLRB 611. We also find without merit the Respondnet's contention that Barefield would have been discharged in any event by Supervisor Ray Olds, if Barefield had not been discharged by Roady We find such contention speculative and irrelevant Nor do we find merit in the Respondent's contention that after the election there is no the very least Barefield was associated by the Respondent as being in this category. Accordingly, we find that the arguments raised by the Respondent in its motion and supporting brief are without merit. Contrary to the Respondent it is our view that the discharge of Barefield must be considered against the background and in the context of Respondent's pattern of coercive con- duct and discriminatory discharges , as found by the Board and affirmed by the court, rather than as a single isolated incident involving only Roady and Barefield, unrelated to attempts of the Respondent to rid itself of the Union and employees it believed to be union adherents. We reaffirm our finding that the record considered as a whole supports the in- ference that Barefield was unlawfully discharged. Thus, the circumstances in which he was discharged-the precipitate manner in which it took place, the disregard of his long oilfield work experience and satisfactory prior employment record, the absence of evidnce that he had been warned about or even previously involved in a similar minor infraction, and the admitted dearth of qualified oilfield personnel-support the inference that he was discharged because of union animus and not because of his alleged misconduct.5 showing that it engaged in a systematic campaign "to pick off union ad- herents " It has long been held that an employer's failure to discharge all union sympathizers does not necessarily indicate that a particular discharge was not discnminatonly motivated See cases cited in fn 56 of the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision