Hillin Drilling Co.

510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hillin Drilling Company and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-3627 September 19, 1969 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Issue DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On July 25, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, together with 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. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case. and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hillin Drilling Company, Odessa, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'We reject, as did the Trial Examiner, Respondent' s contention that the eligibility principles of Hondo Drilling constitute an unlawfully adopted rule which may not be applied herein We note particularly that the Hondo Drilling standards have been applied only if warranted by the facts of a given case See, e g. Carl B King Drilling Company . 164 NLRB No 68 We further note that here, Respondent was granted a hearing on objections to permit it to litigate both the validity of the Hondo Drilling standards, and the propriety of their use as applied to its operations, and that the facts were fully contained in the record and considered by the Board in its ruling thereon Accordingly, in view of the Respondent's agreement that the election herein be held subject to its right to litigate thereafter the propriety of using the Hondo Drilling eligibility standards, we see no basis for concluding that the Board's ruling did not amount to a finding made on the facts of record in an adjudicatory proceeding which was binding on the Respondent Cf, N.L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S 759. Under these circumstances , also, it is clear that all procedural safeguards on behalf of Respondent were preserved and were fully satisfied. CHARLFS W. SCHNFIDER, Trial Examiner: The case arises on a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the General Counsel upon an admitted refusal by the Respondent to bargain with a certified union on the ground that the Respondent's challenges and objections to the election had been improperly overruled. The Representation Proceeding' On March 29, 1968, pursuant to Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a Representation Petition in Case 16-RC-4875. On April 23, 1968, the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 approved a stipulation for certification upon consent election which had been executed by the Hillin Drilling Company, herein called the Respondent, and the Union, wherein they agreed that an election be held among the employees of Respondent in an appropriate bargaining unit described hereinafter. On May 9, 1968, secret-ballot elections were held at Odessa, Texas. and Monahans, Texas, among the employees in the appropriate unit to select a bargaining representative. Upon conclusion of the balloting the parties were lurnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 33 eligible voters. 14 cast valid votes for and 13 cast valid votes against the Union, 9 cast challenged ballots, and there were no void ballots. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Pursuant to timely objections to the election filed by Respondent on May 14, 1968, and by the Union on May 15, 1968, an investigation of the challenged ballots was made by the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 who thereafter on June 25, 1968, issued his Report on Challenged Ballots in which he recommended to the Board that the challenges to three ballots he sustained and that the challenges to the remaining six ballots be overruled. The Acting Regional Director further recommended that resolution of the objections be deferred, pending a decision on the challenged ballots. On July 8, 1968, Respondent filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., its Exceptions to Report on Challenged Ballots by Regional Director, in which it excepted to the over-ruling of the challenge to the ballot of one employee, I D. Haney, for the reason that Haney was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. No other exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report were filed by either party within the time provided therefor. The Board on July 16, 1968, as corrected on July 23, 1968. issued an order directing Regional Director to open and count challenged ballots in which it deferred ruling on 'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Case 16-RC-4875 as the term "record" is defined in Sec. 102.68 and 102 69 (1) of the Board's rules (Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board, Series 8 as amended). See LTV Electrosystems , Inc , 166 NLR B No 81, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (CA. 4); Golden Age Beverage Co, 167 NLRB No 24, enfd. 415 F 2d 26 (C A 5), Intertype Co. v. Penello. 269 N Supp 573 (D C Va ), Intertype Co v N L.R. B. 401 F 2d 41 (C A. 4), Follett Corp et al. 164 NLRB No. 47, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7), Sec 9(d) of the National Labor Relations Act 178 NLRB No. 84 HILLIN DRILLING COMPANY the employer' s exception to the challenge to the ballot of Haney and adopted, pro forma, the Acting Regional Director' s recommendation on the remaining challenges. The Regional Director was directed to open and count the overruled challenges to which exception had not been taken. The Regional Director was further directed to prepare and serve on the parties a revised tally of ballots. In the event that the revised tally of ballots showed the one ballot excepted to be determinative of the election. the Regional Director was instructed to refer the matter to the Board for further action on the Employer's exception and the challenge to the ballot. Thereafter, on July 24, 1968, the Regional Director issued a revised tally of ballots which revealed 16 votes for, and 15 votes against the Union, l ballot still challenged , and one void . As the challenged ballot was sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director referred the matter to the Board on July 26, 1968, for further action. The Board, on August 15, 1968, issued its Decision and Direction ordering the Regional Director to open and count Haney ' s ballot and then prepare a revised tally of ballots including the challenged ballot. The Regional Director was further directed to take appropriate action concerning any further unresolved issues Pursuant to the Board's direction, the Regional Director opened Haney's challenged ballot and on August 23, 1968, issued a final Revised Tally of Ballots showing 17 votes cast for the Union and 15 votes against. On August 26, 1968, the parties were notified of the revised results and on September 17, 1968, the Union withdrew its objections to the election. Pursuant to the Board 's further direction , the Regional Director then conducted an investigation of the three objections to the election filed by the Respondent. The objections were. (1) that the election should not have been conducted under the voter eligibility rules set out in Hondo Drilling Company NS L , 164 NLRB No 67, for the reason that Respondent does not meet the criteria for such rule (The stipulation for certification upon consent election had specifically reserved to Respondent the right to object to this election being conducted under such special rules); (2) that a union observer had made a false statement to two voters at one of the two voting places during the voting ; and (3 ) that because of the violence conducted by the Union in connection with another labor dispute, one employee was so frightened and intimidated that he failed to mark his ballot after being informed that the Union challenged his right to vote and that he would be investigated. After an investigation pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's rules, the Regional Director on September 19, 1968, issued his report on objections in which he recommended to the Board that objections 2 and 3 be overruled in their entirety and that a hearing be conducted to enable the parties to present record evidence with regard to objection 1. Thereafter on September 30, 1968, Respondent filed Employer's exceptions to report on objections with the Board in Washington, D.C., insol'ar as the report recommended the overruling of objections 2 and 3. On November 22, 1968, the Board issued an order directing hearing in which the Board found that Objections 2 and 3 raised no material or substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director' s findings, conclusions and recommendations , or which would necessitate a hearing. However, in regard to objection 1. in the absence of exceptions to the Regional Director' s recommendations, 511 the Board adopted pro forma the Regional Director's recommendation that a hearing be conducted thereon for the purpose of receiving evidence relating to the voter eligibility rules set forth in Hondo Drilling Company, NS L.. 164 NLRB No. 67, and Carl B. King Drilling Company, 164 NLRB No. 68. and to the propriety of the use of such rules in this case A hearing on Respondent's objection 1 was held on January 30, 1969, and thereafter, on February 19, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued his report on objections in which he recommended that objection 1 be overruled in its entirely for the reason that the voter eligibility rules set forth in the above-cited cases were applicable, and that the Union be certified. The Respondent, pursuant to Section 102.69 ( c) of the Board' s Rules and Regulations filed timely exceptions with the Board in Washington. D.C., to these recommendations. On May 9, 1969, the Board issued its Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative finding that the Respondent 's exceptions "raise no material or substantial issues of tact or law which would warrant reversal of the Hearing Officer's findings, conclusions , or recommendations." Accordingly the Board adopted the Hearing Officer' s findings, conclusions and recommendations, and, as the tally of ballots showed that the Union had obtained a majority of the valid ballots cast the Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Complaint Case On May 19. 1969, the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge involved in the instant case, in which it alleged that since on or about May 15, 1969, the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union. On May 29, 1969, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director of Region 16. issued a complaint (subsequently amended) and Notice of Hearing alleging that the Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request. On June 9, 1969, the Respondent filed its Answer to the Complaint, and on June 18, 1969, its answer to the Amendment to the Complaint, in which certain allegations of the complaint were admitted and others denied. In its answers Respondent admits the following allegations of the complaint: (1) filing and service of the charge: (2) certain jurisdictional facts; (3) that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; (4) that the unit is appropriate, (5) the receipt of the final revised tally of ballots, the fact of the hearing on Respondent's objection 1 and the fact of the Hearing Officer's recommendation of dismissal thereof; (6) the Union's request on or about May 13, 1969, to bargain collectively. (7) the Respondent's refusal thereof on or about May 15, 1969, and (8) that Joseph Connally, attorney for Respondent , has been and is now an agent for Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Respondent's answers denied paragraphs 7, 8 in part, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19 of the complaint as amended. In sum, Respondent denied that the stipulation for certification upon consent election referred to in complaint paragraph 7 contained an agreement that an election be held for the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit. Respondent affirmatively asserted that it would show that, subject to Respondent's right to litigate the propriety 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the application of the Hondo rule to it, "the Stipulation provided that many non-employees be allowed to vote in the election." Respondent also denied that the election was conducted among the appropriate unit, that the revised final tally of ballots showed that the Union had obtained a majority of the valid votes, that the Union was the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, and that the Respondent had committed or engaged in any unfair labor practices. Under date of June 19, 1969, received June 20, 1969, Counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in which he contends that the pleadings considered together with the official Board record in the underlying representation proceeding raise no issues requiring a hearing, that Respondent's defense set forth in its answers raise no litigable questions of fact and that, as a matter of law, Respondent has no valid defense to the complaint. On June 24, 1969, 1 issued an order directing the parties to show cause as to whether or not General Counsel's motion should be granted. On July 9, 1969. Respondent filed a response to order to show cause stating contentions more specifically referred to hereinafter No other responses have been received Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Counsel for the Respondent opposes the motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its response. Respondent urges that the General Counsel's motion should be denied for the following reasons. First, Respondent asserts that certain fact issues which have been created by Respondent's pleadings and its objections to the elections have never been litigated and that the Respondent is entitled to present evidence at a hearing on these issues and to confront witnesses and cross-examine them As a matter of due process, Respondent insists, it is entitled to such a hearing. Secondly, Respondent asserts that the Board's Hondo rule was improperly applied to the facts of this case and further, that even if Respondent were a proper subject for the application of the rule as the rule has been set out by the Board, the rule was adopted in contravention of the requirements of Section 6 of the National Labor Relations Act and Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act and thus it should not be applied to Respondent. Thirdly, Respondent contests General Counsel's motion which in Respondent's response is said to pray "that in accordance with Sections 102.20, 102 24, and 102.25 of the Board's Rules and Regulations (Series 8, as amended) that the allegations of the complaint be deemed to be admitted to be true, and be so found prior to a hearing and without a hearing being held, and that the Trial Examiner's Decision be issued based thereon " Respondent asserts that, "Such a prayer is contrary to the Rule relied upon, 102.20, because Respondent has denied some allegations and thereby raised and created fact issues within the pleadings themselves.'' In support of its contention that it has raised litigable fact issues, Respondent, in its response on page 2 lists the two issues on which it seeks a hearing. They are (I) the allegation that a union observer had made a false statement to two voters at one of the two voting places during the voting; and (2) the allegation that because of the violence conducted by the Union one employee was so frightened and intimidated that he failed to mark his ballot after being informed that the Union challenged his right to vote and that he would be investigated. These are the exact issues which the Regional Director, after an investigation pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules, recommended in his report on objections of September 19, 1968 be overruled in their entirety without a hearing. These recommendations were adopted by the Board on November 22, 1968, at which time the Board held that no material or substantial issues of fact or law were involved which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's recommendation or which would necessitate a hearing respecting the allegations. Thus Respondents contention that a hearing is required has already been resolved by the Board to the contrary in the representation proceeding The Respondent thus seeks to relitigate the issue here. This the Respondent may not do before the Trial Examiner. It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, not to permit litigation before a Trial Examiner in a complaint case of issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior related representation proceeding ' This policy is applicable even though no formal hearing on objections has been provided by the Board. The Respondent does not assert that it has newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. Contrary to Respondent's assertion, it is not entitled as a matter of due process to an evidentiary hearing. There is no absolute right to a hearing under Section 10(b) of the Act if there are no litigable issues,' and that there are not such issues here has been effectively decided by the Board The cases cited by the Respondent' are not authority to the contrary. Those cases hold that an evidentiary hearing is required where there are substantial and material issues They are not to be construed as requiring such a hearing where, as here, there are no such issues. Respondent's second contention concerns the applicability of the Hondo rule (see Hondo Drilling Company, N.S.L , 164 NLRB No. 67) to its operations. In the Hondo case, the Board set down certain specialized criteria for determining voter eligibility and the scope and composition of the unit in operations of oil well drilling employers who operated in the Permian Basin , an area located in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico. These differing standards were established because employment practices in the oil well drilling industry differ substantially from those found elsewhere.` -Krieger-Ragsdale & Co, Inc., 159 NLRB 490. enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C A 7). cert denied 389 U S 1041, N L R B v Macomb Potterv. 376 F 2d 450 (C A 7), Howard Johnson Company. 164 NLRB No 121, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 63 NLRB No 71 Rnercide Press, Inc v. NLRB 415 F 2d 281 (C A 5) See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v Is L R B , 313 U S 146, 162, Board Rules and Regulations , Sec. 102 67(f) and 102 69(c). 'Harry Campbell Sons' Corporation , 164 NLRB No 36, fn 9, and cases there cited , O K. Van and Storage Inc, 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F 2d 74 (C A 5). N L R B. v Air Control Window Products. Inc. 355 F 2d 245 (C A. 5). See especially N L R B v. Bata Shoe Co. 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A 4), " there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that there be a hearing in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial to determination of whether NLRB election results are to be accepted for purposes of certification " 'V L R.B v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, 318 U S. 9, Home Town Foods, Inc d/b/a Foremost Dairies of the South v N L R B, 55 LC 12,019, N L R B v Dallas City Packing Company, 230 F.2d 708 (C A 5), N L R B v Lamar Electric Membership Corp. 362 F 2d 507 (C.A 5); N L R B v. Jocklin Manufacturing Co, 314 F.2d 627 (C A. 2); United States Rubber Co v N,L R.B. 373 F 2d 602 (C A. 5), N L R B v. Lord Baltimore Press, Inc, 300 F 2d 671 (C A 4) 'Hondo Drilling Company , N S L., 164 NLRB No. 67 HiLLIN DRILLING COMPANY Respondent claims that it is not a proper subject for application of the Hondo rule and that the record bears out this contention. What the record shows is that on January 30, 1969, a hearing was held on Respondent's contention that the Hondo rule was inapplicable to it and on February 19, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued a report, later adopted by the Board, in which he found that the Hondo voter eligibility rules did in fact apply to Respondent's operations. Respondent is thus attempting to litigate a matter on which a full hearing was afforded in the prior representation proceeding. The Trial Examiner in these circumstances is bound by the prior determination of the representation proceeding.` Respondent further asserts that in formulating the rule in Hondo Drilling the Board failed to follow the requirements of Section 6 of the National Labor Relations Act and of Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The basis for this contention is not explained, but presumably the proposition is that the Board was required to follow the rule making procedure set out in Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S C. 553). This contention is not sustained. In the first place. the Board is directed by Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act to determine appropriate units, to direct elections and to certify the results thereof. In that connection the Board is given a broad discretion "rarely to be disturbed." Packard Motor Car Company v. N L.R.B. 330 US. 485, 491; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 163 NLRB No. 24, enfd. 411 F 2d 356 (C.A 7); Ureda v. Brooks, 365 F.2d 326 (C.A. 6). Section 9 and its accompanying authority. reenacted by Congress following passage of the Administrative Procedure Act, are not to be considered as modified by Section 4 of the latter Act. The Board decided the issue of the composition of the voting unit in the adjudicatory proceeding and issued appropriate orders. including a certification of the bargaining representative. That action, being within the Board's statutory authority, was therefore valid irrespective of the requirements of Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act. N.L R B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co. 394 U.S. 759. In the second place the Hondo rule is a general statement of policy, applicable on a case by case basis in accordance with the employment experience of the particular employer. Such a rule, if rule it can be called, is not subject to the requirements of Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 4(a) states in part: Except where notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection shall net apply to . . general statements of policy... . The hearing referred to is, of course, one relating to the establishment of a statement of policy. There is no statute requiring notice or hearing in the establishment of statements of policy in representation issues of this nature. In the third place the Respondent was given adequate notice of the proposal to apply the Hondo rule to the Respondent's situation and to contest it. The Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election specifically recognized the Respondent's right to contest and to litigate the issue. Thus, paragraph 7 of the Stipulation provided in part as follows ... this Stipulation for Consent is without waiver of or prejudice to the Employer's right to contest and litigate `See cases cited at fn 2, supra 513 through objections to the election. Section 8(a)(5) procedures or otherwise the validity of or applicability of the particular voter eligibility rule followed by the Regional Director for the employees of this Employer in this election, pursuant to direction of the National Labor Relations Board in Hondo Drilling Company, N S.L , 164 NLRB No. 67 and Carl B King Drilling Co., 164 NLRB No. 68. The Respondent exercised that right, and a hearing was provided for this purpose in which the Respondent was afforded full opportunity to present its views and evidence both as to the intrinsic merit of the Hondo rule and the validity of its specific application to the Respondent's operations. Thus, even if it be assumed that establishment of the Hondo rule was subject to the requirements of Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act the Respondent has been afforded every right to which it would have been entitled if the application of the rule had been pursuant to the procedures of Section 4 instead of by adjudication Thus, the Respondent has not been prejudiced in any event. Cf. Wyman-Gordon Co., .supra.' The last of Respondent's contentions is that by its denial of some of the allegations of the complaint it has raised and created fact issues within the pleadings themselves which require a hearing. This contention is without merit Pursuant to Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Respondent must specifically either deny or explain, unless he is without knowledge. each allegation of the complaint or it will be deemed to be admitted. It does not follow, however, that a simple denial of the allegation will always raise a factual issue. Here, on the basis of the prior representation proceeding, which has been officially noted, it is found that the denials of the allegations of complaint paragraphs 7, 8. 12. 13, 17, 18, and 19 do not raise issues warranting a hearing. There thus being no unresolved matters requiring an evidential hearing the motion of the General Counsel for Judgment of the Pleadings is granted, and I hereby make the following further. Findings and Conclusions 1. TFIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Hillin Drilling Company is. and has been at all times material herein, a Texas corporation. having its principal offices in Odessa, Texas, and engaged in the business of drilling oil and gas wells in southeast New Mexico and that area in west Texas known as the Permian Basin. In the course and conduct of its business, Respondent, during the past calendar year. which period is representative of all times material herein, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located 'Indeed the Respondent appears to have been accorded more procedural protection by the adjudication than he would have received if the Board had used the rule making mechanism Under Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act the only notice of the rulemaking to which the Respondent would have been entitled is publication of the proposal, its time and place, in the Federal Register of which Respondent may or may not have learned But whether it was aware of the proceeding or not, the Respondent would have been bound by the rule, and its only recourse would have been to file a petition for a waiver or amendment of the rule U S v Storer, 351 U.S. 192 In addition under Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act the Respondent's participation would have been limited to "submission of written data. views or arguments with or without the opportunity to present the same orally in any manner"-a degree of participation substantially less than that accorded the Respondent by the Board 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD outside the State of Texas, and, during the same period of time, purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Texas which were transferred to its operations in the State of Texas directly from other states of the United States 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION iNVOIV'FD The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNI'AiR LABOR PRACTICES The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. On May 9. 1968, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board in which a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit designated and selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. On May 9, 1969, the Union was certified by the Board as, and at all times since the Union has been, the collective-bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the said unit and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been, and is. the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay. wages. hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. It is admitted and found that on or about May 13, 1969, the Union requested the Respondent to meet with it for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to the employees in the appropriate unit, and that on or about May 15, 1969, Respondent refused and continues to refuse to do so. By thus refusing to bargain collectively the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained. and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The nature of employment with the Respondent, which impelled the Board to apply the Hondo rule to the election, makes special provision necessary for adequate publication of the provisions of the order As has been seen, employment may be at locations other than at Odessa and Monahans. In addition some employees who were on the Respondent's payroll at the time of the refusal to bargain, but are not at the present time, may anticipate possible re-employment by the Respondent Therefore, in addition to requiring the posting of copies of the order at the offices and yards of the Respondent at Odessa. it will be recommended that the order contain the following provisions (1) That copies be posted at crew headquarters at drilling sites for 60 days or until the rig is stacked. whichever occurs first. (2) That copies be provided the Union for posting (the Union willing) at union halls or meeting places in the Permian basin. In view of the fact that the election was held on May 8, 1968, special provision is also necessary concerning the duration of the certification, to the end that the employees will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Co, Inc. 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co. d/h/a Lainar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817: Burnett Construction Co , 149 NLRB 1419. 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10) Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Board issue the following. ORDER Hillin Drilling Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with international Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit All employees, but excludirg office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive collective bargaining representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, APL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (b) Post at its offices and yards in Odessa, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Similar copies shall be posted at the crew headquarters at drilling sites for 60 days or until the rig is stacked, whichever occurs first Copies shall also be provided the Union for posting (the Union willing) at Union halls or meeting places in the Permian basin. Reasonable steps shall he taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material 'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals enforung an Order' shall he substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " HILLIN DRILLING COMPANY 515 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' 'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE 10 Al L EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board WE WILL NOI refuse to bargain collectively with International Union of Operating Engmeers, Local 826, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all our following employees: All employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive collective-bargaining representative. Wi- WILL bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached we will sign a contract with the Union. Dated By HILLIN DRILLING COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered. defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice may he directed to the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal Office Building. 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102 Telephone 817-334-2921.