Humble Oil & Refining Co.

In the Matter of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and OIL YV ORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCALS No. 333 AND 316 Cases Nos. C-590 and C-591.Decided October 13, 1939 .Oil^..,Refining.,In.dic•strll-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union notices ; supervisory participation in a "Security League" which ' waged&,`anti- union campaign through speeches, journals, pamphlets, petitions, and other means ; persuading employees to refrain from forming or joining or to resign from union ; vilifying union and leaders ; surveillance of union meetings and members ; responsibility of employer for acts of supervisory employees : eligi- bility to union does not affect ; contention statements made in their personal capacity and not in a supervisory capacity as affecting ; associate editor hired by respondent to write in its behalf in the magazine which it distributed to' the employees held to function as part of the management and his actions therefore chargeable to the respondent-Company-Dominated Union: campaign fostering company-dominated Joint Conference Plan while attacking outside union ; inside unions formed upon dissolution of Joint Conference'Plan ; super- visory assistance and coercion ; disestablishment of and abrogation 'of: contracts with, ordered-Discrimination : charges of, dismissed-Eviddnce : prior to pas- sage of Act, admission of, to show background of practices occurring subse- quent to passage of Act-Employee Status: supervisory, determination of: right to. hire and fire not an essential in; fundamental criterion for, whether or not employee exercises authority of management over employees under him ; gang- pushers as ; employee who supervised safety activity at plant as: Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board. Mr. J. Q. Weatherly, Mr. Hines N. Baker, Mr. W. J. Barnes, and Mr. E. E. Townes, all of Houston, Tex., for the respondent. Mr. John H. Crooker and Mr. Phillip A. Walker, both of Houston, Tex., for the Federations. . Mandel rPc Combs, by Mr. W. A. Combs and Mr. Edwin Flowers, both of Houston, Tex., for the Union. Mr. Francis Hoague, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Separate charges and an amended charge were filed by Oil Workers International Union, Locals Nos. 333 and 316, herein called the Union, with Edwin A. Elliott, Regional Director for the Sixteenth 16 N. L. R. B., No. 15. 112 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 113 Region (Fort Worth, Texas), alleging that Humble Oil & Refining Company, herein called the respondent, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor. Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On February, 55,-.1938, the National Labor Relations Board, . herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 37 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the two cases. -based upon the. separate charges be con- solidated for the purpose of hearing. On February 18, 1938, the Board issued its complaint against the respondent, alleging in sub- stance (1) that prior to, on or about April 23, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent interfered with the formation and administration of Employees Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Bay- town Refinery, herein called the Baytown Federation; (2) that prior to, on or about April 30, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent inter- fered with the formation and administration of Employees Federa- tion of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside Refinery, herein called the Ingleside Federation; (3) that the respondent has encouraged membership in the Federations and has contributed sup- port thereto and has discouraged membership in the Union; (4) that on or about July 12, 1937, the respondent discharged H. A. Sullivan, an employee at the Baytown Refinery, and on or about October 18, 1937, discharged S. P. Stockton and C. E. Vance, employees at the Ingleside Refinery, for the reason that these individuals had joined and assisted a labor organization; (5) that by these and by other acts the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to organize-and bargain col- lectively. The allegations in the complaint related only to the employees of the respondent's refineries at Baytown and Ingleside, Texas. A copy of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Baytown and Ingleside Federations. The xesponclent filed, an..answer to the com- plaint in which it denied that it was engaged in interstate commerce, and also denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing'was held in Baytown, Texas, between March 7 and 24, 1938, and at Corpus Christi, Texas, between March 28 and April 2, 1938, before James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing the Federations moved to intervene in the proceed- ings in so far as their interests were affected. ' This motion was 'granted by the trial' Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the Union, and the- Federations' were"represented by counsel and par. 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses was afforded all parties. -At the close of the Board's case regarding the Baytown Refinery, the Board's coun- sel moved 'toy dismiss the complaint as' to the discharge of H. A. Sullivan. The motion was granted. During the course of the hear- ing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and objec- tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rul- ings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On April 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recom- mended dismissal of the allegation that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. On May 14, 1938, the Union filed exceptions to the Interme- diate Report. On May 28, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the record and the Intermediate Report, and on June 1, 1938, the Federations filed exceptions to the record and the Intermediate Re- port. On November 28, 1938, the respondent filed .a brief in support of its exceptions, and on November 30, 1938, the Federations filed a brief in support of their exceptions. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument on the exceptions was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on De- cember 1, 1938. The respondent, the Union, and the Federations were represented by counsel who participated in the argument. The Board has considered the respondent's, the Union's, and the Federa= tions' exceptions to the Intermediate Report and in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Humble Oil & Refining Company -is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business at Houston, Texas. Of the 9,000,000 shares of stock outstanding in the company, approximately 70 per cent are owned by Standard Oil Company, a New Jersey corporation. The respondent is engaged in the production, purchase, and sale of crude petroleum, and in the manufacture from crude petroleum of refined petroleum products. It owns oil wells in the States of Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana. It also owns four oil refineries located in Texas. The present proceeding involves two of these refineries, HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 115 located, respectively, at Baytown and Ingleside; Texas. Almost all of the crude oil used by these two refineries is supplied from wells located in the State of Texas. The Baytown refinery runs approximately 122,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day. Of the refined petroleum products produced at the Baytown refinery, approximately 90 percent are moved there- from aboard vessels. The principal purchaser of the refined prod- ucts so moving by vessel is Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a Delaware corporation, the stock of which is owned by the above- mentioned Standard Oil Company, which transports out of the State of Texas for consumption elsewhere the refined products so purchased. The Ingleside refinery runs approximately 20,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day. Approximately 75 per cent of the refined petro- leum produced at Ingleside is transported therefrom by vessel in the same manner as described above. Here, as at Baytown, the principal purchaser is the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which trans- ports all the products so purchased outside the State of Texas for consumption elsewhere. In its domestic franchise tax return, filed with the Secretary of State of Texas, the respondent stated that during the year 1936 it had done business in Texas to the value of $35,885,155.20, and during the same period had done business outside the State of Texas to the value of $127,643,347.84. The respondent customarily employs approximately 3,600 em- ployees at the Baytown refinery and 670 employees at its Ingleside refinery. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 333 is a labor organi- zation affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to membership the production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its Baytown refinery, excluding certain super- visory employees. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 316 is a labor organi- zation affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to membership the production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its Ingleside refinery, excluding certain super- visory employees. Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership all production, maintenance, and clerical employees of the respondent at its Baytown refinery, but excluding certain super- visory, employees. Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership all production, maintenance, and clerical employees of the respondent at its Ingleside refinery, but excluding certain super- visory employees. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES . A. Baytown Refinery 1. Prior to April 23, 1937 In 1920, shortly after the Baytown Refinery had been constructed, the respondent in conjunction with the employees evolved a plan under which the employees elected representatives to meet with rep- resentatives appointed by the respondent. On December 10, 1920, the respondent entered into an agreement with the elected representa- tives that was thereafter referred to as the "Joint Agreement.", This agreement established the "Joint Conference Plan" at the Bay- town Refinery "whereby elected representatives of the employees at Baytown shall meet in Joint Conference with representatives of the management to discuss and settle, -subject to. final, review by the Board of Directors, all matters of joint interest such as hours, wages, and working conditions, and the adjustment of grievances." 2 Under the Plan no membership list was maintained and all non-supervisory employees were entitled to participate in the elections.3 No meetings of the general membership were provided for by the Joint Agreement, and none was contemplated. Nor were any dues imposed. Repre- sentatives were elected annually by the employees "at the call of the [respondent's] President" 4 on the basis of one representative to each hundred employees or major fraction thereof within a division. The division status of an employee for the purposes of' elections was de- termined by the respondent's time rolls, and in case of doubt by the respondent's superintendent. The Joint Agreement provided that "Joint Conferences of em- ployees' representatives of all Divisions and of the Company repre- sentatives shall be held quarterly at the call of the [respondent's] President to discuss matters of mutual interest pertaining to the works as a whole, or, at any, time at the call of the President should occasion, demand. In addition, a Joint Conference of any Division shall be called at any time when in the judgment of such representa- tives, or of the management, such a conference is desirable, and made so as to include if necessary, conference with such other additional 1 There Is no evidence as to whether the Joint Agreement was signed by either party. z Article 1 of the Joint Agreement. Prior to December 12, 1934, 6 months' employment prior to an election was a requisite either to vote or to be eligible for election as a representative. * On December 3, 1934, this was amended to have the annual elections held at the call of the employee representatives. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY" 117 Divisions as the [respondent's] President may arrange for." ' No provision was made for the meetings of the employee representatives apart from the Joint Conferences. Any employee had the right to appeal his grievance "to the Superintendent, Department Manager, and the higher officials of the Company, provided he shall first seek to have the matter adjusted " by. conference; in person or thiough his regularly elected representative, with the Foreman or the Employ- ment Department. Before such appeal shall be taken to any official higher than the Superintendent, it shall first be considered in a joint conference composed of Employees' Representatives in the Division affected, and an equal number of representatives of the Company. In case such conference fails to agree unanimously as to a fair adjust- ment, an appeal may be made to the General Joint Conference at the works." The Joint Agreement further set out a list of 16 offenses for which an employee might be discharged without further notice, and also established a disciplinary procedure for unlisted offenses. The re- spondent agreed not to discriminate against an employee on account of his membership or non-membership in any church, society, fra- ternity or union. The Joint Conference Plan functioned as provided in the Joint Agreement until April 1937. Annual elections were held during working hours, on company property, and at the expense of the respondent. The employee representatives were permitted to spend their working time in caucuses with one another, in investigating grievances of their constituent employees and in making preparations preliminary to meeting with the management representatives. For time so spent the respondent paid the representatives their - regular wages. It is clear from the foregoing that the respondent participated in the creation of the Joint Conference Plan. The Plan itself gave the respondent's president sole power to convene the General Joint Con- ference and until 1934 to call for an election. The respondent's super- intendent was given the power to determine the division in which an employee should vote. According to the Joint Agreement, no employee could appeal a grievance from the decision of his foreman except through the channels of the Joint Conferences.; For over 16 years the Plan operated at the expense and with the aid and cooperation of the respondent. The entire Joint Conference Plan was in its essentials a part of the respondent's personnel machinery rather than an expression of the employees' desire for organization. We find that from December 10, 1920, until April 22, 1937, the respondent As later set forth, the respondent did not enforce this provision with regard to the Union so as to prevent its discussing grievances directly with the management. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Joint Conference and contributed financial and other support thereto." While the respondent's conduct prior to the effective date of the Act did not constitute an unfair labor practice, such couduct is nevertheless material in evaluating the respondent's subsequent conduct.sa In 1933, Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., chartered Local No. 227 in Houston, Texas. Employees of the respondent at the Baytown refinery were admitted to membership in this local. In July 1934 the A. F. of L. chartered Local No. 333, which confined its membership solely to the Baytown employees of the respondent. Shortly after receiving its charter, Local No. 333 petitioned the Petroleum Labor Policy Board for certification under the National Industrial Recovery Act.' At that time Local No. 333 claimed authority to represent over 1,400 of the 2,300 Baytown employees, and requested an election, if necessary, to prove this claim. The respondent opposed the holding of an election on the ground that it was willing to recognize Local No. 333 as the representative of its members. The record does not disclose that the Petroleum Labor Policy Board took any action on the petition. During the succeeding years up to the date of the filing of the charge in this proceeding, the respondent met with the repre- sentatives of Local No. 333, for the purpose of discussing individual grievances of members. All matters, however, concerning wages, hours, and working conditions were handled exclusively by the com- pany-dominated Joint Conference. Prior to the period covered by the complaint, Local No. 333 changed its affiliation to the Committee for Industrial Organization, and later changed its name to Oil Work- ers International Union, Local No. 333, herein called the union. In the late part of August and early September. 1937, there was a rumor prevalent in Baytown that the Union would call a strike at the Baytown plant to enforce certain demands." On September 3, 1937, H. C. Weiss, the respondent's executive vice president, wrote an open letter to its employees, copies of which were widely circulated among them. The letter read in part : Since its construction, more than seventeen years ago, Baytown Refinery has operated without any serious difficulties between "Matter of International Harvester Company and Local Union No. 57, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, 2 N. L. R. B. 310; Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Work- ers of America, Local No. 5, 11 N. L. R. B. 105. °A Our order will not require any action by the respondent with reference to the Joint Conference Plan. ° Chapter 90, 48 Stat. 195-200. The record does not disclose the details concerning the source of the strike rumor, the events which led up to it, or the nature of the Union' s demands. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 119 men and management. The misunderstandings and complaints that have arisen during those years have been met and adjusted through conferences between the employees themselves and the management. . . . We believe that no worker should be required to pay tribute to anyone nor to any organization for the right to work. This we hold to be a sound American principle. It is our belief that the majority of our employee ant to continue these relations which have proved so satisfactory -to all concerned. . Perhaps the announcement of a possible strike at Baytown is an initial step in the recent movement of certain national union officials to organize the oil industry. The leaders in this move- ment are outsiders. They are not workers in the oil industry. In fact, their principal interest lies in the coal industry, which is the natural competitor of oil. Their recently announced deter- mination to organize the oil industry has the appearance of a political move where a small group seeks to dominate and impose its will upon all of us. Such movements serve only the leaders who profit and acquire added power thereby... The success of efforts of this kind is dependent upon coercion, and that is the root of the evil. This insidious force can best be combatted by the resistance of the employees themselves. Without the support of a large number of workers, coercive tactics will inevitably fall of their owni weight. The Company will stand behind you with all possible support. Coercion and intimidation in any form is bad and is contrary to the public interest... . In a letter to the President of Local #333, the Company's pol- icy was simply restated as follows : "You are already familiar with our Company policy, which is, to treat all employees with the same degree of fairness; mem- bership or non-membership in any organization will not entitle any employee to any better treatment than any other employee. We do not intend to make any agreement, the effect of which would be to require our employees .to belong to a union or to pay tribute to anyone or to any organization for the right to work. In other words, the Company has no intention whatso- ever of operating a `closed shop' and will oppose any effort to establish such a condition at Baytown now or at any time in the future." A reading of this letter could have left no doubt in the minds of the employees as to the respondent's attitude toward the Union. It set forth the respondent's position as squarely opposed to the Union and as righteously so. From its content it is evident that the letter was calculated to discourage and forestall allegiance to the Union 247333-40-yol. ] 6---0 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and injure its standing in the eyes of the employees by stigmatizing its organizational methods as necessarily coercive and its motives as corrupt. Thus, after calling attention to the 17 years of harmonious adjustment of complaints "through conferences between the employ- ees themselves and the management," the letter gratuitously envisaged the employees under compulsion "to pay tribute" to an outside, or- ganization in return,0C, "the right to work." It suggested that the union movement was "a political move whereby a small group seeks to dominate and impose its will upon all of us." It argued that the leaders of this movement had no legitimate interest in the oil industry because of their primary interest in the coal industry, and then added : "Such movements serve only the leaders who profit and ac- quire added power thereby." After these disparaging imputations, the letter directly advocated that the employees combat "this insidious force" and offered them "all possible support ." Such an exposition of the employer's wishes is intended to and necessarily does dis- courage all but the most determined adherents of the Union from participating in its activities. We find that by this open letter, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. A tension, gradually mounting to alarm, developed in the city of Baytown concerning the rumored strike. The city divided into two factions, one favoring the Union and the other opposing it. From those opposing it a Citizens ' Committee was formed, which conducted a campaign of pamphleteering and speeches against a strike. On September 10, 1937, the Union voted to go on strike. The date set for the strike was September 18, 1937. A few days before the prospective strike, Brown , the garage fore- man, called all his men into his office and told them that in the event of a strike their jobs would be open for them. He said that they were up against "a pretty tough proposition" and that they would have to take care of themselves . He then took a vote as to what men would come to work and what men would go on strike. The effect of this speech was to arouse the employees to a militant opposition to the strike, some of the men threatening to bring guns to insure their get- ting to their jobs. We find that by this statement, calculated to pro- voke violent resistance to the prospective strike, the respondent inter- fered with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Prior to the date set for the strike , the Union, for reasons not set forth in the record, voted to call it off . Some 2 weeks thereafter, C. F. Kelley, foreman of the inspection department , met: '^V: O. Tidmon, an employee in his department , in front of the inspection office and HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 121 urged him to be less active in the Union. Regarding the conversation that took place, Kelley testified : We started talking about other things, the work to begin with and then I told him that I wanted to give him a little advice just as roan to man, not as his foreman at all, but just as man to man. And he said all right, he would be glad to hear it. And I told him if I were in his place that I would not take such a prominent part in union activities that he had taken. And he wanted to know what I meant by that. I said,-"Well, it looks like to me that they are letting you do the dirty work over there." He said, "What do you have reference to?" I said, "Well, guiding these negroes around Baytown. That will sooner or later get you in trouble if you do that. And you are letting Bob Oliver and Roy Childers [union officers] make a sap out of you." We find that by Foreman Kelley's statement and warning to Tidmon to take a less prominent part in union activities, the respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Concerning the activities of the Union from September 1936 until the middle of February 1937, the record is barren. During this period, however, the respondent utilized the Humble Bee, its house organ published semi-monthly by it and distributed free to its em- ployees, to describe and extol the various benefits accruing to its employees. This was done through a series of articles authorized in early September 1936 by Stuart A. Giraud, the chairman of the respondent's manufacturing committee, and written by G. A. ["Pop"] Mabry, editor of the Humble Bee. The articles discussed seriatim the following subjects : job security, wage policy, sickness benefits, promotion and advancement policy, the retirement plan, the annuity and thrift plans, death benefits and group-insurance plans, additional contributions by the respondent to the Thrift Fund, the accident- benefit fund, the safety program, and special training for employees. The issue of February 11, 1937, carried an article entitled "Around the Council Table," which discloses a purpose to which the articles of the previous months were directed. The article praised the Joint Conference and related the benefits described in the previous articles to the activities of that body. We quote the following excerpts from the February 11 article : This particular Conference is a Baytown Conference, composed of men who live and work at Baytown. All of them are em- ployes of the Humble Company. The Conference, therefore, settles local questions locally and promptly by the sincere efforts of fair-minded representatives of employes and management all, working for just conclusions. It is quite obvious that in cases 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD where management is dealing with men of its own Company, concerning matters within their control, there is every incentive to keep employer-employe relations on a basis of mutual satis- faction and good will. .. . It costs the employe absolutely nothing to be represented under the Joint Conference Plan; there are no dues to pay, no fines, no assessments-use of the plan is entirely voluntary... . It has been said that the foundation on which the Joint Con- ference Plan rests is honesty and sincerity on the part of both management and employe. If we may assume that honesty and sincerity are present then it must be obvious that such a plan offers to the employes of industry, and to industry itself, the most practical means obtainable for establishing the vital contact between those people who direct the Company's destinies and those who carry on its work. This plan is a most effective means for collective dealing, be- cause the bargaining is done by and with people who know the facts at first hand; by people whose interests are vitally affected and by people who have a sincere desire to see that fair decisions are arrived at. I submit as evidence of the sincerity and honesty of the man- agement of this Company, all the things we have been writing about in this series ; all the benefits that are ours simply because we are Humble employes. I submit the guarantee that we will always be paid at least as much money as the average in this area for the same type of work; the fact that we are paid for time lost due to illness; that we get more than the law demands we should get if we suffer a disabling injury; that every last one of us has an opportunity to develop our capabilities to the utmost; that provision is made for our retirement along generous lines; that group insurance is available at favorable rates; that real cash money is added to our own savings so that we may lay up something for whatever may lie ahead; and that, in the event of death, the Company provides free death benefits to our dependents. In so far as the Conference representatives are concerned, the average of theta-over a long term of years-has been a man who is intelligent, fair-minded and unafraid. They are not overawed nor out-talked by representatives of the management and they have fearlessly represented the men who elected them. The entire article is an implied comparison of the Joint Conference with an affiliated labor organization. The central theme of the article is the greater effectiveness of "inside" representation in secur- ing collective benefits for the respondent's employees. Thus, the HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 123. Joint Conference was characterized as a method "which settles local questions locally and promptly," and as "the most practical means obtainable for establishing that vital contact between those people who direct the Company's destinies and those who carry on its work," and as "the most effective means for collective dealing, be- cause the bargaining is done by and with people who know the facts at first hand." Finally, the argument for "inside" representation was pointed by directing attention to the tangible benefits, described in previous articles, which had been obtained during the operation of the Joint Conference Plan of collective dealing. This article in the respondent's house organ, coming as a climax to the series listing and eulogizing the benefits accruing to the re- spondent's employees necessarily carried to the employees the coercive pressure of the respondent's economic power to benefit or hinder them and made plain to them that their best economic interests lay with the Joint Conference or inside representation. To put these articles in a more permanent form, the respondent had them all printed in booklet form and bound in cloth under the title "You And Me And The Company." A copy of this book was given to each employee who requested one. In the middle of February 1937, the national representatives of the Union announced an organizational drive among the oil workers in the Gulf Coast area of Texas, and indicated that the spearhead of the drive would center on the employees in the Baytown refinery. In the latter part of February, shortly after the announcement of the Union's new organizational campaign, W. A. Thomas, an employee who during 1936 had been the secretary of the employee representatives to the Joint Conference, formed an organization called the Security League, which was partly modeled after a "security league" in existence at the Weir- ton Steel Company in Weirton, West Virginia. The admitted pur- pose of the Security League was to oppose the Union's organizational drive. Supervisory employees took a conspicuous part in the activi- ties of the Security League and their participation and that of other employees in many of the League's activities took place during work- ing hours and on company time, to the knowledge of the respondent. The Baytown Security League was first formed at a meeting of five or six of the respondent's employees. By the time of the next meeting the group had expanded to 50 members. These 50 members constituted the Central Council. of the Security League. The list of the members of the Central Council includes the following supervisory employees : Norman S. D'Olive, associate editor of the Humble Bee; W. B. Hollis, shift supervisor in the gauging department in charge of 40 to 50 men; A. B. Atwood, machine shop working foreman; W. J. Kilgore, shop foreman and chief mechanic in the garage; John Opryshek, shift 124 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisor in the lube-oil department; V. R. Reese, a rigging gang- pusher; and J. B. Mallard, labor gangpusher. At least one foreman, A. B. Atwood, left his work to go to the meeting, without suffering any loss in pay for the time so spent. Funds were raised from contributions from local business estab- lishments and from the respondent's employees. A pamphlet solicit- ing contributions contained a list of men who would receive the con- tributions. The names of all the above-mentioned supervisory em- ployees, members of the Central Council, appeared on the list. This pamphlet was distributed through the refinery and was posted on the respondent's bulletin boards for 1 day, after which it was taken down at the order of the refinery superintendent. Several open meetings of the Security League were held, at which speeches were made opposing the Union. On March 11; and on April 9, a publication in the form of a newspaper called "The Voice" was issued free to the public. The names of the 50 Council members, in- cluding those supervisors listed above, appeared in "The Voice" as sponsors for the publication. Both issues of "The Voice" were entirely devoted to condemnation of the Union, its personnel, its alleged mo- tives and methods. It castigated the Union and the C. I. O. as "out- siders" who for selfish and corrupt motives wanted to impose them- selves and- their desires upon the employees. Among these vehement anti-union articles was a verbatim copy of Weiss' letter of September 3, heretofore described. On April 9, C. M. Harper, superintendent of oil straining and blending, advised Hoffpauir, an employee, to read "The Voice," because, as lie stated, there was "some good literature in it." Another activity of the Security League involved the circulation of a petition which read as follows : A PETITION In view of the announced plan of John L. Lewis, and the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization, to organize the employes of the oil industry into one vast union, we, the undersigned, do hereby affix our signatures and pledge our support to the following : 1. That we have the utmost confidence in" the board of directors of The Humble Oil and Refining Company, and G. L. Farned, Superintendent of the Baytown refinery, in continuing the same policy of fair dealing with the employes. 2. That we, as Humble employes, believe we are capable of pro- moting our own welfare without the aid of (sic) assistance in any form of John L. Lewis, the C. I. O. affiliated organizations, or associates, and do hereby declare our opposition without reserva- HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 125 tion, to any program the said John L. Lewis, the C. I. 0., affiliated organizations, or associates, do, or may contemplate fostering in this community .. . 3. That we have no objection to the Humble Employees Security League using our names in showing how we stand in this matter. For several days the Security League distributed copies of this petition, commonly called the anti-Lewis petition , throughout the plant for signature. Signatures were solicited on company time to the knowledge of many of the supervisors. Several high-ranking supervisors , including Humphrey, the superintendent of the gauging department, and C. H. Bradford, welding supervisor, signed the petitions. Among those who circulated the petitions and solicited signatures were W. B. Hollis, A. B. Atwood, V. R. Reese, J. B. Mallard; J. G. Wolf, welding shop foreman, C. M. Harper, foreman of the oil -straining and blending department, R. C. Read, working shift supervisor in the gauging department , J. Gregerson, machine shop gangpusher , and J . E. Peters, gangpusher . The plant super- intendent, upon learning of the circulation of these petitions , ordered them removed from the plant. This order, however, came only after circulation had been carried on for a day and a half , and it was some time after the order before all solicitation within the plant ceased. What disposition was ultimately made of these petitions does not appear in the record. From April 6 to 8, the Security League distributed at the gates of the plant 4,000 copies of a booklet published by the Constitutional Educational League, entitled "Join the C . I. O. and Help . Build a Soviet America." The booklet is 60 pages of invective and castiga- tion of the Committee for Industrial Organization as either Com- munist or Communist controlled . The booklet warns that the ulti- mate purpose of the C. I. O. is to overthow the government and ordered society as it is now known . Four to five hundred copies of this booklet were distributed by W. B. Hollis, shift supervisor of the gauging department. The distribution of these booklets, ending on or about April 14, was the last act of the Security League. The respondent protests that many of the above-mentioned super- visory employees occupied such inferior supervisory positions that their acts are not attributable to the respondent ,. and in support of its protest states that these men had no authority to hire and dis- charge. The existence or non -existence of this authority is not of itself determinative of the issue but is only one factor indicative of supervisory status. The fundamental criterion for the determination of an employee's status as a supervisor is whether or not in the 9 The positions of these four are set out above in connection with the Security League contributions. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD course of his duties he exercises the authority of management over the employees under him. At the Baytown' refinery the supervisory staff was in the form of a hierarchy with the final authority of man- agement vested in the plant superintendant. Supervisory authority began at the refinery with the gangpushers, also called labor foremen. Each gangpusher is in charge of a group of laborers, skilled or un- skilled, whose work he directs and controls. He can recommend a discharge to the management. In supervising and directing his gang of men he is exercising the authority of the management. We find, therefore, that the gangpushers occupy a supervisory status and that their acts are attributable to the respondent. The acts of the fore- men and shift supervisors who hold positions of greater authority than gangpushers are a fortiori attributable to the respondent. The status of two individuals remains in dispute. We shall consider the facts relative to their duties and authority. A. B. Atwood testified that his duties were to line up machinists on the work, check the work, and do some of the work himself. He supervised the men and was responsible for their work. He con- sidered himself to be in a sufficiently authoritative position to absent himself from work without making request for permission from any superior. We find that he was a supervisor. D'Olive, associate editor of the Humble Bee, is in a somewhat different position from that of the production supervisors. Although he had no men under him he was hired by the respondent to write on its behalf in the magazine which it distributed to the employees. The Humble Bee was an organ of the respondent and a part of its personnel program. The utterances of the Humble Bee were those of the respondent. Although D'Olive was not in charge of any em- ployees, as paid associate editor of the Humble Bee lie did represent the respondent in its relations with its employees as expressed in that organ and consequently his actions in matters of interest to the em- ployees would scarcely be considered by them to be at variance with the policy of the respondent. Hence, when his name appeared among the group of sponsors of "The Voice" for the Security League, it was not to be expected that the employees would disassociate that action from his similar employment for the respondent. By reason of the nature of his position, as indicated above, we find that D'Olive functioned as a part of the management and that' his actions, there- fore, were chargeable to the respondent. The respondent further points to the fact that some of such super- visory employees were eligible for membership in the Union. It is true that some of the supervisors mentioned were eligible for mem- bership in the Union. We have, however, held that a supervisor's HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 127 eligibility to membership in a complaining union does not affect the legal responsibility of an employer for his acts." We find that the respondent, through certain supervisory employ- ees, took an active part, as described above, in the Security League, whose sole ooject was to defeat the organizational efforts of the Union. We also find that the respondent, through other supervisors, gave tangible assistance to the Security League by permitting the circulation of anti-union petitions on company time and property and that it thereby gave these anti-union petitions its implied ap- proval. We find that by such activities the respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. During this period the anti-union activities of the respondent were not confined to the Security League. On March 8, Joe Reilly, super- visor of stillmen, presided over the monthly safety meeting of 25 to 30 stillmen and helpers. Although there is conflict in the evidence as to some of the details of the occurrences at this meeting, there is little dispute as to the substance of the discussion at the meeting. After discussion of certain safety devices and precautions, the subject of the Union's organizational drive was broached. Reilly enumer- ated the various benefits given the employees by the respondent and praised the respondent's treatment of the Baytown refinery workers. He stated that he personally saw no need for the Union at Baytown; that no doubt the men John L. Lewis would send to Baytown would be "very smart, intelligent, silver-tongued orators," but that the em- ployees would not profit by listening to them inasmuch as the organ- izers would be there for the sole purpose of getting the employees' money and then leaving. He then called upon volunteers to state their views on the organizational drive. After a number of men had expressed their views, Karl Opryshek, assistant process superintend- ent over Reilly, who had been present throughout the meeting, asked two or three more who had thus far been silent to speak their minds openly on the subject. By the end of the meeting most, if not all, of the men present had expressed themselves as being either for or against the Union. We find that by Reilly's expressions of antagonism toward the Union and by his and Opryshek's calling upon their subordinates to express their individual attitudes regarding the Union, the respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 10 See Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A. F. of L. Federal Union No. $1,164, 9 N. L. R. B. 117. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. After April 22, 1937 On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decisions in five cases affirming the constitutionality of the Act.- On April 23, 1937, the respondent called a special meeting of the Baytown Joint Conference. At this meeting Hines Baker, a mem- ber of the respondent's board of directors and legal staff, read a pre- pared statement in which he stated that because of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States the Joint Conference must be dissolved. The statement then elaborated certain provisions of the Act relating to the right of employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations. At one point the respondent praised the Joint Conference plan as "an effective means of settling controversial ques- tions," and said further, "The elected representatives under this Plan have acted as the collective bargaining agency for our employees during that entire period." Toward the end of the statement Baker promised: "This company will ... pay employees for the time spent during working hours in conference with the Management. The Act precludes the Company from paying the expenses of elec- tions and other like costs or from contributing financial or other support." Since there was no question of the respondent financing thtyUnion or its elections, this amounted to a promise that if an in- side organization were formed thereafter it could continue to enjoy the assistance of the respondent as far as the Act would permit and to that extent constituted an invitation to the employees to form an inside organization. A verbatim report of this meeting including Baker's statement was immediately mimeographed, posted, and distributed widely throughout the refinery. All supervisors down through the stillmen, including the shift supervisors, were told not to interfere with the men in their choice of a bargaining agency, and that "if any em- ployee in a supervisory capacity shall encourage or discourage or assist or resist the formation of any labor organization, it must be clearly understood that he is acting on his own responsibility, and is not acting for the Company." During the next few days, W. A. Thomas, an employee who in 1936 had been the secretary of the elected representatives to the Joint Conference, and who in 1937 had been the originator of the Security League, drew up a constitution for an "inside union." He used as models the constitutions of several labor organizations, together with the Joint Agreement which had set up the Joint Con- "The Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103 ; Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 142; Na- tional Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp ., 301 U. S. 1; National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co . (2 cases), 301 U. S. 58. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 129 ference Plan. On April 24 he called together six employees, out of hours, who discussed his plans and decided to take further action. At the next meeting, on April 26, the group had expanded to ap- proximately 60 employees. Here, after discussion and some revi- sion, the constitution was adopted, and it was decided to take a vote of the employees regarding their approval or disapproval of the organization of the Federation. The constitution, the ballots, and notices of the polling were printed that night. The ballots con- tained not only a place for voting for or against the Federation, but at the bottom had a form for application for membership in the Federation. The printing was done on the credit of some of the leaders in the Federation movement, and was subsequently paid for from Federation funds. Balloting was held outside the refinery gates from April 27 to May 4. Two thousand five hundred sixteen employees voted for the Federation, seventy-nine against, and two thousand thirty-eight employees signed the applications for membership in the Federation. The ballot was not secret .2 One gangpusher in charge of Mexicans and Negroes ordered a group of Mexicans and Negroes to vote. The Federation constitution established an organization similar in its essentials to the Joint Conference Plan except for the omission of the employer representatives. Representatives to the Central Council, as to the Joint Conference, were to be elected, 1 for every 100 employees or major fraction thereof within a division. The limits of a division were to be determined by the Central Council of representatives. In fact the divisions set out by the Central Council were more numerous than under the Joint Conference Plan, and con- sequently there were more representatives than theretofore. As in the Joint Conference Plan, no provision was made for membership meetings. Employees were specifically permitted to handle their own grievances, without the intervention of a representative. On May 6 the Humble Bee carried an article entitled "An Institu- tion Passes," containing an encomium of the Joint Conference Plan in which Baker's statement to the Joint Conference was quoted in full. In a box in the middle of this article was an announcement of the formation of the Federation. On May 8 the Federation sent a letter to the officers of the respondent stating the election results and requesting a conference to discuss recognition. The respondent replied that it would meet with the Federation. A few days thereafter 40 of the original 60 founders of the Federation met with Giraud, the chairman of the respondent's manufacturing committee, and some other officials. Giraud stated 'a Tables were set up just outside various gates of the refinery and 5-gallon oil tins with a slot cut in the top were put on the tables. Ballots were handed out by election officials, marked and signed by the voters at the table, and deposited in the cans. 130 DECISIONS OI NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that if the Federation would perfect its organization to conform to constitution , the respondent would negotiate with it for a contract. From June 14 to July 2, representatives of the various departments were elected 13 Shortly thereafter committees were established. The contract committee drafted a proposed contract to submit to the re- spondent. The Joint Agreement was used, together with other union contracts, as a model in drafting. The proposed contract contained the same list of offenses , with two additional offenses, for which an employee could be discharged without notice , as was contained in the Joint Agreement. The proposed contract was presented to the management, and on July 22 to 27, all-day conferences were held between the representa- tives of the respondent and of the Federation, at which the various provisions of the contract were discussed . On July 30 an agreement was reached. At an election held from August 9 to 12, the Federation members voted to accept this agreement, and on August 14 the contract was signed by both parties. The contract, which was to remain in force for 1 year and thereafter until terminated by 60 days' notice given by either party, provided among other things that the respond- ent should designate representatives of the management to meet at intervals with the Central Council of the Federation . It also provided for recognition of the Federation as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all non-supervisory employees at Baytown. On August 14 the Federation, at the respondent's request, gave the re- spondent affidavits concerning the results of the various Federation elections. On October 25, 1937, the contract was amended by mutual agreement to extend the vacation privileges of employees with 15 years' service for the respondent. During May 1937 and subsequent months, several supervisory em- ployees were active in aiding the Federation and in disparaging the Union. Sometime in the middle of May 1937 , J. D. Holland, super- intendent of Oil Movement over some 260 men , had a conversation in the refinery with C. C. Fogarty, a stillman. After talking on several topics, the conversation turned to the subject of unions. Holland stated that he could not see any need for the Union at Baytown in view of the good treatment that the respondent accorded its employees. He outlined the various benefits accruing to an employee and said that he thought that in view of this generous labor policy the Union would have a difficult job "to sell the idea to the men." He said that lie thought that the employees would get further with the respondent if they "would remain loyal to the Company , and stay out of outside unions of any kind." Holland testified at the hearing that he "thought 13 This balloting was conducted outside the refinery gates. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 131 perhaps the conversation would probably take him (Fogarty) out of the dark and show him the light, as to the policy of the Humble Oil and Refining Company." It is evident from this statement that Hol- land's remarks were made to discourage Fogarty's union affiliation, and we so find. In either May or June 1937, George Walmsley, the superintendent of utilities in charge of 167 men, held a conference with Snyder, his assistant supervisor, and Wright, an employee in his department. The conference had been called to discuss a possible promotion for Wright. Snyder stated that Wright did not get along well with his fellow workers because of his union activities 14 This statement was not denied at the hearing, but Walmsley testified that Wright's failure to receive the promotion had "no connection in the world" with his union activities. If this were so, there could have been no purpose in Snyder's remark other than a coercive one. If, however, disfavor among his fellow workers because of his union activities did have some bearing on his qualifications for promotion, it was coercive to state this reason. to him at a time when he was being considered for a promotion. In July or August 1937, J. H. Massey, who had been a boiler- makers' foreman but who was temporarily serving as a zone super- visor, asked A. E. Doleshol, a welder, whether he had joined the Federation yet. Upon Doleshol's replying that he had not, Massey told him that he should sign up and that he (Doleshol) could not afford to belong to the Union now because of the position he was in.15 During a night shift in September or October 1937, A. Sheffers, night supervisor over the entire plant, made an obscene reference to the union button that was being worn by E. Hoffpauir, a first helper in the filter house. Hoffpauir said to him, "Mr. Sheffers, you do not believe in organized labor, do you?" To this Sheffers replied, "Or- ganized labor is all right up in those sweat shops and places like that, but we don't need it here in this refinery. We have a little company union here. We take our grievances up to the management of the company and we can get anything we desire through this little com- pany union." J. A. Cope, the shift supervisor over Hoffpauir, was present during this conversation and merely laughed at it. Neither Cope nor Sheffers was called upon at the hearing to deny these state- ments. We find that by Holland's, Snyder's, Massey's, and Sheffers' statements to Fogarty, Wright, Doleshol, and Hoffpauir, respectively, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 14 Wright was not prcmoted but there is no issue under the pleadings with respect to this. 11 The record does not indicate the significance of the phrase about his position. 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Conclusions regarding the Baytown Federation For more than 14 years prior to the effective date of the Act, and for more than 11/2, years thereafter, the respondent fostered , encour- aged, and supported the Joint Conference in its refinery and con- ditioned its employees to collective dealing through that agency. During the latter period the respondent used the Joint Conference as a means of combatting the Union . To accomplish this purpose it not only continued to maintain the Joint Conference and to give it finan- cial advantages not accorded to the Union, but also conducted an extensive campaign of propaganda through the Humble Bee, its house organ, to promote its acceptance by the employees . While the re- spondent thus aided , promoted, and maintained the Joint Conference as "the most effective means" for collective dealing, it attacked the Union's personnel , motives, purposes , and methods. We have found that Weiss' letter of September 3 was designed to discredit the Union among the employees and to induce a militant employee hostility to the Union . The activities of the various supervisory employees which we have found above including their activities in the Security League and in permitting the circulation of the anti -Lewis petitions on company time furthered this hostility. By these complementary programs the respondent's coercive pres- sures deprived its employees of any actual freedom in their choice of representatives for collective bargaining , and limited them to col- lective action through an inside labor organization . The respondent contends that Baker's statement dissolving the Joint Conference dis- pelled any coercive effect its past conduct may have had on its em- ployees. We cannot agree with this contention. On the contrary, the statement praised the Joint Conference as "an effective means of settling controversial questions," and extended the promise of con- tinued assistance within the limits of the Act to any future inside organization. Coming after a persistent campaign promoting inside employee representation and opposing the only outside representation then in the plant, the statement, as it must reasonably have been un- derstood by the employees , was an indication of what was already apparent , namely, that the respondent was desirous of dealing with its employees through the medium of an organization patterned on the Joint Conference. The rapid response of the employees confirms this view. Thus, within only 3 days, W. A. Thomas, who had pre- viously organized the Security League, drafted a constitution, and a committee of 60 employees had accepted it. This constitution es- tablished a Central Council of employee representatives , elected 1 for every 100 employees , as were the employee representatives tinder the Joint Conference Plan. The constitution necessarily could not establish a procedure of joint conference between employer and HUMBLE OIL cf: REFINING COMPANY 133 • employee representatives. This was accomplished, however, with the execution of the contract of August 14. That contract provided for employer representatives "to meet in conference with the Central Council" in "regular conferences at stated times," and the resulting combination achieved by the Federation constitution and the con- tract is hardly distinguishable from the Joint Conference, such dis- tinction as exists being solely by virtue of the formal duality of the successor arrangement. The subsequent aid given to the Federa- tion by supervisory employees as described above constituted further interference with the formation and administration of a labor organization. The respondent maintains that even though the Joint Conference Plan was dominated by the respondent, the Plan was dissolved on April 23 and that thereafter the respondent did not in any way inter- fere with the formation and administration of the Federation. We cannot accept this contention because as we have found the re- spondent did in fact so interfere with the Federation. To summarize, we find that the respondent's unfair labor prac- tices over a period of years repelled the organizational efforts of the Union and accustomed its employees to collective action through an inside representation plan dominated and supported by the re- spondent; that the respondent dissolved the company-dominated Joint Conference because of its patent disabilities under the Act as an agency for representation of employees, but in doing so fur- nished its employees, already sensitive to its desires and preferences, the impetus toward the formation of a similar inside organization ; that in accordance with the respondent's wishes unmistakably made known to its employees by its past conduct and implicitly reaffirmed in Baker's dissolution statement, the Federation was evolved with substantially the same structure as the abandoned Joint Conference; that upon the formation of the Federation, the respondent's super- visors assisted it; and finally, that the nominal reorganization of the company-dominated Joint Conference did not represent the choice of the employees unhampered by the respondent's domination and interference. The respondent urges that since its organization it had published and observed a strict policy of non-discrimination against employees because of membership or non-membership in any society, fraternity, church, or union, which policy was known and understood by the employees. It is true that the respondent frequently reiterated a policy of non-discrimination, but it is equally true that the repetition of the statement did not render less apparent either its preference for an "inside" organization or its opposition to the Union. In fact, the respondent had made this statement in the same terms often during the period when it was openly fostering and supporting the Joint 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Conference and attacking the Union. When the same statement was. made at the time of the dissolution of the Joint Conference, the employees had no reason to believe that it had acquired any new significance or represented any change in the respondent's actual policy with respect to "inside" and "outside" employee representation. Another contention advanced by the respondent is that many state- ments were made by supervisors not in their capacity as supervisors or on behalf of the respondent but purely in their personal capacities. The relation of the ordinary worker to his supervisor does not admit of any such unrealistic distinction. In his relationship to employees under him, a supervisor is in fact as well as in law unable to divest himself of the status given him by the management. Even if such a distinction could be made under certain circumstances we see no merit in the respondent's contention that the circumstances considered here warrant the drawing of such a distinction. At the hearing both the respondent and the Federations offered to introduce evidence regarding the activities of the union repre- sentatives during the period when a strike was threatened and during the Union's organizational drive. It was contended that many acts committed on behalf of the Union antagonized a large number of the employees, and that it was this antagonism which caused the hostility to the Union and the formation of the Federation. The Trial Examiner did not permit the introduction of this evidence, and we have earlier in this Decision affirmed his ruling. Assuming that conduct of the Union tended to evoke antagonism among the em- ployees, the record leaves no doubt that the respondent by its conduct augmented and fostered such antagonism. Where, as here, the em- ployer's acts clearly constitute unfair labor practices, such evidence of additional motivation for the formation of a labor organization is irrelevant and immaterial. We find that the respondent has sponsored, dominated, and inter- fered with the formation and administration of the Baytown Fed- eration, and through its supervisory officials has given support thereto. We find that by these acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization and to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing. B. Ingleside Refinery 1. Prior to April 30, 1937 Since 1932 the respondent's labor policy at Ingleside has been sim- ilar to that at Baytown. In that year the Joint Conference Plan was established there by a "Joint Agreement" identical to that at Bay- town. We shall not repeat in relation to the form and structure of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 135 the Joint Conference Plan at Ingleside what we have said with respect to the form and structure of the Joint Conference Plan at Baytown, but in those respects we adopt and make specifically as our findings regarding the Joint Conference Plan at Ingleside our find- ings concerning the Joint Conference Plan at Baytown. We find that from 1932 until April 30, 1937 , the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Joint Con- ference Plan at Ingleside, and contributed financial and other sup- port thereto." During the years 1935 to 1937 the union members participated in the elections of representatives and a majority of the employee representatives in the Joint Conference were members of the Union. The Ingleside refinery had no counterpart to the Bay- town strike rumor of September 1936 or to the Security League. In the middle of February 1937 the Union commenced an intensive organizational drive similar to that at Baytown. This drive occa- sioned a series of coercive acts by the respondent . Coincidentally with this organizational effort, the respondent , on February 15, 1937, hired one Ready, a special ranger with a deputy sheriff's commission, to police the Ingleside refinery. For a time Ready "wore a gun." After protest from the employees , however, Goss , the refinery super- intendent, told him not to wear his gun "except when necessary." Prior to February 15, 1937, there had never been a public officer at the plant, the respondent relying on four or five civilian watchmen to take care of the premises. Goss' testimony that Ready was hired to direct traffic at the refinery gate is not credible. In view of Ready's subsequent anti-union activities , discussed infra, we find that he was hired for the purpose of intimidating employees from joining and assisting the Union. In March 1937, George P. Curtin, the assistant plant manager, told A. J. Ingram, a stillman, that the C. I. O. was an "outlaw organiza- tion" and that his union activity would not bring him "anything but grief before it was over." In the same conversation he urged In- gram to drop his membership in the Union . Curtin admitted much of this conversation but denied that he had urged Ingram to quit the Union. On cross-examination , Curtin's direct testimony was contradicted in some respects . In view of the unreliability of his testimony and in view of Curtin's other acts set forth below, we do not credit his denial . We find that the respondent , through Curtin's statements, interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 2 , 1937, G. L. Farned, superintendent of the Baytown refinery, came to Ingleside for a visit . Frank Goss, the Ingleside superintendent, told Henry Weir , a night-shift foreman and the 16 Our order will not require any action by the respondent with reference to the Joint Conference Plan. 247383-40-vol. 16--10 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD president of the union local, that Fanned wanted to see him. Fanned met Weir and, when alone with him, told him that he knew Weir was a union man and that therefore he wanted to talk with him about the organizational drive. He asked what the Union in Ingle- side thought of the drive and what it intended to do if sit-down strikes came to that part of the country. He asked whether Weir thought that the local would have control of the situation or whether it would be under the orders of the national representatives. He said that although he had not been disturbed about the Union there- tofore, he was so now, and that he felt: that the C. I. 0,.-was-"too radical" and "wanted to come in for the purpose of making a lot of trouble." He told Weir that he hated to see him "get out on a limb too far," and said that the employees at Baytown were not going to "let Lewis come in," that many of them had dropped from the Union, having seen their mistake. Weir replied that thus far the Ingleside members of the Union had no objections to the C. I. O. or Lewis and that as long as they thought that the organizational drive was right they would support it. After about 20 minutes of this conversation, the two parted. In the middle of April 1937, after the Supreme Court decisions referred to above, Goss, the Ingleside superintendent, called Weir into his office and said that the management wanted to know what he would do in the case of a show-down between the respondent and the Union. He expressed concern about the organizational drive, and repeated what Fanned had said regarding the Baytown em- ployees'^ attitude toward the Union. He said- that the men whom Lewis had hired as organizers were Communists and Socialists and were getting information and support from Russia. He then offered to, lend Weir a pamphlet that he had loaned to another employee. He told Weir that he would get it to him as soon as the employee had finished reading it. He also suggested reading an article in the April 1937 issue of the "American Mercury," and another in a par- ticular issue of "Time" magazine." Goss went on to condemn the Union and to urge Weir to get out of it for his own good. That night, R. L. Sparkman, a Stillman, brought Weir a copy of "Join the C. I. O. and Help Build a Soviet America," which has already been mentioned in connection with Baytown. Goss testified that he had been given this pamphlet as he had come out of the Baytown refinery gates, and that he had loaned it to Sparkman. Shortly after this, Goss gave Weir photostatic copies of certain speeches of two international representatives of the Union, in which they spoke of forcing men to join the Union. To the copies was clipped a note from Tom Moore, of the respondent's personnel office in Houston, I i' There is no evidence of the contents of this issue of "Time ." The nature of the two other recommended articles appears hereinafter. i HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 137 saying that as nearly as he could find out, these clippings were what Goss had requested. At the hearing Goss denied any criticism of the C. I. O. or John L. Lewis. He also denied knowledge of the nature of the "Soviet America" pamphlet. He did say that in the conversation Weir had said that the union local did not take orders "from the top." In view of the fact that Goss recommended the "Soviet America" pam- phlet to Weir and had at least glanced through its contents, we can- not credit Goss' denial of knowledge of its contents. His recom- mendation of the pamphlet to Weir also renders improbable his tes- timony that he had not criticized the Union or its leaders in his con- versation with Weir. Because of these inconsistencies, we feel that W'eir's testimony is to be believed over Goss'. The respondent urges that Farned and Goss were merely exer- cising the respondent's right to prevent its supervisory employees from interfering with the organizational activities of their subor- dinates. These acts, however, went far beyond such a purpose. They were patent attempts to induce Weir to forego his union member- ship and activities not to prevent improper interference by a super- visor with the rights of employees under his supervision but rather to discourage membership and activity among the respondent's ordi- nary employees through the defection of the union president'8 We find that the respondent, by Goss' and Farned's statements and acts described above, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Sometime toward the end of April, Wilkie, regional director of the respondent's Industrial Relations Department in southwest Texas, gave the chief clerk at Ingleside eight copies of an article published in the April 1937 issue of the "American Mercury," entitled "Revolu- tion in Michigan." He instructed that these copies be distributed to the representatives of the Joint Conference, and on April 30 they were so distributed. The article constitutes a purported description of the part played by the Committee for Industrial Organization in certain strikes which occurred in January 1937 at General Motors Company plants in Michigan. It singled out the various leaders of the Committee for Industrial Organization as Communists, Social- ists, and revolutionaries. The Committee for Industrial Organiza- tion was represented in the article as a ruthless minority which, by subversive means, imposed its will upon the majority of the workers. The factual truth or falsity of the article is immaterial. The re- spondent's purpose in distributing this article to the Joint Con- 18 See Matter of William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publications, Inc., a Corporation, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., a Corporation, Hearst Corporation, a Corporation. American Newspapers, Inc., a Corporation, and King Pictures Syndicate, Inc., a Corpora- tion and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No. 82, 13 N. L. R. B. 1262. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ference representatives could only have been to dissuade its employees from membership in the Union, and we so find. We find that the respondent, through Wilkie's above-described acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Although evidence as to the distribution of the "Humble Bee" among Ingleside employees is not conclusive, inasmuch as it was available to any employees of the respondent, and inasmuch as part of the publication was devoted to activities at Ingleside, we infer and find that copies were so distributed, containing the series of articles discussed in connection with Baytown commending the Joint Conference to the employees and finally inferentially attributing to its efforts many of the benefits obtained by the employees over a period of years. 2. After April 29, 1937 As hereinbefore stated, the respondent dissolved the Baytown Joint Conference on April 23, 1937, and the Federation movement sprang into being within a day or two thereafter. At Ingleside the respond- ent did not dissolve the Joint Conference until April 30, 1937. In the interim, B. D. Alleman, a clerk in the accounting department at Baytown and one of the six founders of the recently formed Baytown Federation, was sent by the respondent to Ingleside to inspect the accounting system. While there, he made the acquaintance of E. R. Moore, a welder, who was secretary of the Ingleside Joint Conference, and told him the details of the formation of the Baytown Federation. He also gave him copies of the Baytown Federation constitution, ballot, and notice of the election. Moore apparently did nothing specific with this information until after April 30, 1937. On April 30, 1937, the respondent held a special meeting of the Ingleside Joint Conference. More than an hour prior to the meeting, E. R. Moore, the employee representative who was secretary of the Joint Conference, appeared at the First Aid Building, where Willard Waddell, the safety director for the Ingleside refinery and a manage- ment representative to the Joint Conference, had his office. Waddell was not there at the time, but arrived some minutes later. As the elected representatives of the Joint Conference walked by on their way to the special meeting, either Moore or Waddell called them into the office, until there were finally gathered four elected representa- tives, including Ingram, a union member, and Waddell. Waddell read and passed around the minutes of the meeting in which the Bay- town Joint Conference was dissolved. Waddell told the men that this was what they could expect to take place at the coming meeting. There ensued a discussion concerning the projected dissolution. At some point Moore produced a copy of the Baytown Federation con- HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 139 stitution and the letter announcing the election, and showed it to the other men. The group then walked across the street to the meeting, at which, after a few preliminary remarks, Baker read the same dissolution statement as he had read a week previously to the Bay- town meeting. After considerable discussion among those present, the meeting adjourned. Verbatim minutes of this meeting were distributed throughout the refinery the next day. The next day, Moore, following the pattern set up by the Baytown Federation, called a meeting of six employees. The Baytown Fed- eration's constitution was discussed and it was decided to accept it, inasmuch as the employees at Ingleside generally followed the lead set up by the employees of the larger plant. As at Baytown, this meeting was followed by a larger meeting. From May 6 to 8 a balloting was held, at which a majority of the employees voted to accept the Federation. The same forms were used for ballots and announcements as had been used at Baytown. The expenses for this were defrayed by contributions from the founders. A written request for a conference with the management to discuss recognition was granted. When later the organization of the Federation had been. perfected, a committee undertook to draft a contract to present to the management. After working on a draft of a proposed con- tract for several days without success, delegates were sent to Bay- town, where they studied the contract which the Baytown Federa- tion had negotiated with the management and which was then awaiting ratification by the members. The Ingleside delegates re- turned with copies of the Baytown contract, which was accepted by the Ingleside committee with one minor change. After a conference with the respondent, the contract was voted on by the Ingleside mem- bership and ratified. On August 18, 1937, the contract was executed by the officers of the respondent and the officers of the Ingleside Federation. The subsequent change that was made in the Baytown contract regarding vacations for employees with 15 years' seniority was likewise incorporated into the Ingleside contract. During the period when the Federation was being formed, several representatives of the management engaged in activities designed to injure the Union and to aid the Federation in much the same fashion as at Baytown. On the evening of May 13, 1937, the Union held a regular meeting of its membership at a hall in the downtown section of Ingleside. Ready, the special ranger hired by the respondent, drove up outside of the hall and wrote down the registration numbers of all the cars parked near the hall. The employees attending the meeting saw Ready take this action. Inasmuch as Ready had no duties other than those involved in his work for the respondent, we find that he took this action on behalf of the respondent in order 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to ascertain the identity of the union members. The employees' knowledge of such surveillance of union meetings and members nec- essarily would engender fear of punitive action by the respondent for union activity. We find that by keeping the Union and its members under surveillance the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. In the middle of May, W. M. Waddell, safety supervisor, had a conversation with V. A. Kirkpatrick, a helper in the gas plant. Kirkpatrick testified that Waddell said that he was in line for a promotion, and asked whether he was a member of the Federation; that Waddell further said that the respondent's Industrial Relations Board had sent him to Ingleside, and that he had told the manage- ment that he could "land" Kirkpatrick and one individual named Scott; that he [Kirkpatrick] said that he had not made up his mind to join the Federation, but that the respondent had said that an employee could join any organization that he saw fit to join, without interference by the respondent; that Waddell replied that that had been the respondent's stated policy prior to the Act, but that the respondent had not believed that the Act would ever "pass." Wad- dell testified concerning this conversation that Kirkpatrick asked him whether joining the Federation would help him to get a pro- motion, to which he refused any advice; that when he left, Kirk- patrick called him back and repeated the question and that he replied that the company policy allowed employees to join whatever they wanted. While a determination as to which testimony is true is not free from doubt, we credit Kirkpatrick's testimony and find that the conversation occurred substantially as recounted by him. The respondent maintains that Waddell's position was not such that his acts were attributable to the respondent. His duties were to supervise all safety activities at the plant. Waddell had been an appointed company representative in the Joint Conference. The respondent paid him on a monthly basis. He gathered safety data from other refineries and safety suggestions from the employees at Ingleside, and had one safety inspector under him at Ingleside. He was responsible directly to the general. office at Houston and Baytown, and only through these offices to the Ingleside superintendent. Wad- dell acted as liaison officer on safety matters between the manage- ment and the employees. When an accident occurred, the safety inspector would make a report and recommendations to the super- visor in charge concerning equipment or any employee involved. Although Waddell had no direct power to discipline employees, he could and did report to the management facts and recommendations regarding safety. Because of the explosive nature of the materials used at the plant, the safety program of the respondent was exten- HUMBLE, OIL & REFINING COMPANY 141 sive. The supervision of this program involved managerial author- ity. In view of all these facts, we find that Waddell represented the respondent in his relations with other employees and that his acts were attributable to the respondent. We find that by Waddell's statement above the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Toward the end of May, Curtin, the assistant plant superintend- ent, conversed with Ingram, a union employee mentioned above, dur- ing working hours. After complimenting Ingram on his ability, and mentioning the possibility of a promotion, Curtin said, "And you still have time to swing into the Federation." Ingram remonstrated that the respondent had declared the employees free to join any organization. Curtin replied, "Well you should be able to read between the lines." Although Curtin denied such conversation, his denial is not credible as against Ingram's testimony, especially in view of the following uncontradicted testimony as to Curtin's further activities. Shortly after this occurrence, Curtin met C. E. Tarver, a still- man's helper, on the street in downtown Ingleside. Tarver had during the previous week driven a broadcasting car for the Union. Curtin asked Tarver whether he was broadcasting that morning, to which Tarver replied that he was not. Then Curtin asked, "What do you mean by lining up with that outlaw outfit? They are just a bunch of communists; they are no good; they are outlaws. They want to overthrow the government, overthrow the country." After further condemnation of the Union, he said, "Patty, you have got lots of sense; you are smart. You get over on the other side; you could go places." The context makes it apparent that by "the other side" Curtin referred to the Federation. Curtin was not questioned at the hearing regarding this conversation. We find that by these state- ments of Curtin's, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Toward the end of May 1937, E. M. Talk, head of the personnel department, met V. B. Colton, an employee of the respondent, in the town of Ingleside. After getting into Colton's automobile, he urged and advised Colton, to join the Federation, saying, "Do you know I would not lead you wrong. I feel like you are kind of letting me down." He then asked to be driven up to one Frank Baldwin's house to get Federation ballots to use for signing up some more em- ployees. On finding Baldwin away from home, he had Colton drive him to the personnel office. There he obtained some Federation ballots which he, took back to town. The two men parted with the understanding that Colton would consider more thoroughly the mat- 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ter of joining the Federation and would let him know if he decided to join. The respondent offered no evidence to deny this incident, but maintained that Talk's position was not such as to bind the re- spondent by his acts. Talk was at this time in charge of the per- sonnel department. His duties were to interview applicants for jobs, and make and keep records of both the applicants and the em- ployees within the plant. We find that Talk represented the re- spondent in his relations with its employees. 3. Conclusions regarding the Ingleside Federation From the foregoing facts we find that the respondent fostered and supported the Ingleside Joint Conference in much the same manner as at Baytown. It conducted the same campaign of propa- ganda among the employees to encourage acceptance of the Joint Conference Plan rather than an affiliated union. Shortly before the dissolution of the Joint Conference officials of the respondent were active in discouraging membership in the Union. The distribution of literature attacking the only affiliated labor organization then active in the plant, at the moment when the Joint Conference was being dissolved must necessarily have had the effect of turning the employees to the formation of an unaffiliated organization. As we have already said in connection with Baytown, the statement of Baker at the Joint Conference failed to dispel the effects of the prior campaign, and intimated that the respondent was desirous of dealing with its employees through the medium of an organization patterned on the Joint Conference. At Ingleside the suggestion was delineated with greater clarity, because of the pre- ceding informal meeting. An hour before the dissolution was formally announced by Baker, Waddell whom we have found to occupy a supervisory status, passed around to a group of Joint Con- ference representatives a copy of Baker's dissolution statement to the Baytown Joint Conference. At this juncture, one of the employee representatives passed among the other representatives a copy of the constitution of the Baytown Federation, which, as we have found, was the vehicle of employee representation which had replaced the Joint Conference Plan at Baytown. Waddell made no attempt to disavow the natural implications of the situation. We find that the passing of this constitution among the employee representatives at a preliminary conference in a supervisory employee's office upon the heels of the passing of the Baytown dissolution statement could have had but one effect, namely, to convey to such employees the re- spondent's desire to have the Joint Conference succeeded by an or- ganization similar to the one at Baytown. These incidents added HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 143 emphasis to what we have already found to be the suggestive na- ture of Baker's statement dissolving the Joint Conference. As in regard to the Baytown Federation, the respondent main- tains that even though the Joint Conference Plan was dominated by the respondent, the Plan was dissolved on April 23 and that thereafter the respondent did not in any way interfere with the formation and administration of the Federation. We cannot accept this contention because as we have found the respondent did in fact so interfere with the Federation. In addition to laying the foundation for the creation of the Ingle- side Federation, the respondent through Waddell, Curtin, and Talk, supervisory employees, gave further support to the Federation and injured the Union. We have already found that the Baytown Federation was the product of the respondent's unfair labor practices. It therefore was not the free choice of the employees. The Ingleside employees adopted this identical form of organization which they copied from the Baytown Federation, followed the same procedural steps in its formation, and adopted the same contract and subsequent amend- ment. Except for the respondent's unfair labor practices in Bay- town, the Ingleside Federation might never have been created. The structure of both Federations was one in whose shaping the respond- ent had a part through its unfair labor practices committed at Baytown. Therefore, apart from the respondent's coercive actions at Ingleside, which of themselves compel a finding of company domi- nation, the respondent's unfair labor practices leading to the forma- tion of the Federation at Baytown, which set the pattern for the smaller refinery, are responsible in large measure for the formation of an identical Federation at Ingleside. For both of these reasons, we find that the respondent has domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Ingleside Federation, and through its supervisory officials, has given support thereto. We also find that by these acts, and by the others related above, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. IV. THE ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES On the afternoon of October 26, 1937, S. P. Stockton, a light-oil treater, had charge of a division of the Ingleside plant known as the treater area. This area contained equipment in which all the gasoline produced by the refinery was processed by means of chem- icals and in which the various types of gasolines and naphthas were 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD blended to produce the proper refined product. The area was di- vided into two parts, Batteries A and B. On that day there were four men under Stockton's supervision, two of whom were inexperi- enced helpers. C. H. Vance, an experienced treater's helper, was in charge of the Battery A "sweeteners." 19 A few minutes before 2:30 p. m. J. W. Story, Jr., the week-end supervisor in charge of the plant, walked into the Battery B "dog house," a small shed which contained a telephone and a gauge record book. Upon entering he saw Stockton, lying stretched out on the floor of the dog house and Vance sitting on the floor with his arms folded across his knees and his head resting face downwards on his arms. Story testified that the one eye of Stockton which was visible from where he stood, was closed and that both men appeared to be asleep. J. B. Webb, a gauger in the area, was also sitting on the floor but was apparently awake. Story on' approaching Battery B had seen Webb entering the dog house. The two inexperienced men, Nix and Banner, were on the job tending to the operations assigned to them. Upon entering the "dog house," Story remarked "You boys seem to be taking it easy in here." The three men got to their feet and there ensued a discussion as to the operations of the unit. The following Monday morning Story reported to C. E. Boyd, the treater foreman, that he had found Stockton and Vance asleep on the job. After he had related the incident, Boyd saw Frank Goss, the plant superintendent, and repeated the story to him. On Goss' instructions Boyd questioned Webb as to whether the men had been asleep. Webb replied "I would not say they were asleep. In fact I would not say they were lying down or sitting up. I do not want to get connected up in the affair." Boyd then saw Banner who told him that he had not seen either Stockton or Vance out on the job for over 45 minutes prior to Story's arrival. From where Banner was working it was not likely that he would have failed to have seen the two men had they been outside of the "dog house." Shortly before 4 p. m. on the same Monday Vance and Stockton were called into Goss' office and told of the charges against them. They both denied that they had been asleep. After some discussion they were told not to report for duty until notified by the respondent. On Tuesday morning Goss, Story, and Boyd met and discussed the action to be taken in the matter. They reviewed the personnel records of these men, which showed that on February 10, 1936, both of the men had received warning notices from the respondent based on an occasion when they had been in the "dog house" away from duty while 300 to 400 barrels of "chemicals" had overflowed and been lost. After further discussion in Goss' office it was decided to discharge " A series of tanks where a chemical treatment of the petroleum products took place. 1 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 145 the two men. The notices of discharge which were given them that afternoon, stated : "Discharge due to sleeping while on duty, neglect of assignment of responsibility, and absence from duty." All three of these offenses were listed in the Joint Conference Agreement and the Federation contract, as grounds for discharge without notice. A further questioning of Nix and Webb regarding the "dog house" incident corroborated Story's account of the affair. In support of the allegation of discrimination it was shown that both men had worked for the respondent for a number of years. Except for the warning notices, the record shows that they were first-class workmen in every respect. For several weeks prior to their discharge both men had been active as members of a special organiz- ing committee of the Union. They had openly distributed union pamphlets on the streets of Ingleside. Although there were some 25 other members of the organizing committee, they had been the most active in the work of publicity. In addition to these activities, Stock- ton held the office of trustee in the Union. Although Story's apparent attitude of unconcern upon coming into the "dog house" on the day the men were allegedly found asleep casts doubt upon the respondent's motives in the subsequent drastic disciplinary measures taken, we do not find that the evidence estab- lishes that the discharges were motivated by the union activities of the two men. The results of the respondent's investigation indicated to it that Stockton and Vance had been asleep and that they had been away from their posts of duty for an inordinate length of time. Their duties involved a high degree of responsibility, particularly in view of the inexperience of the two helpers. The explosive nature and the volume of the materials with which they were dealing re- quired close supervision. The similarity of the previous offense for which they had been given a warning notice, added to the gravity of the second offense. Upon all the evidence we find that the respondent did not dis- criminate against Stockton and Vance because of their activities on behalf of the Union. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD VI. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We shall order it to cease and desist from engaging in such practices. We halve found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Federa- tions. Since the Federations both in structure and inspiration were the product of the respondent's interference, domination, and sup- port, they were incapable of offering to the respondent's employees the free representation for collective bargaining which is guaranteed by the Act. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Federations as representatives of the respond- ent's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and to dis- establish them as such representatives.20 The two contracts nego- tiated by the Federations constitute a barrier to the free exercise of the employees' right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. In order to effectuate the policy of the Act, therefore, we shall order the respondent to cease giving effect to these contracts or to any contracts made with the Federations.21 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Oil Workers International Union Locals Nos. 316 and 333, Em- ployees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, are labor organizations, within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and Employees' Federa- tion of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, and by contributing support to said organizations, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 20 Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., V. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U. S. 261. " National Labor Relations Board v. Staclepole Carbon Company, 308 U. S. 605. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 147 5. The respondent by discharging S. P. Stockton and C. H. Vance has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Humble Oil & Refining Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Em- ployees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Bay- town refinery, and Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, or the formation or adminis- tration of any other labor organization of its employees, or from con- tributing support to Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act; (c) Giving effect to its contracts of August 12 and 18, 1937, to any extensions or renewals thereof, and to any contract executed by the Humble Oil & Refining Company with the Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, or the Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside re- finery, as the representatives of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside refinery, as such representatives; (b) Immediately post and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in para- graphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order, (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order, and (3) that the contracts signed on August 12 and 18, 1937, or any extensions or renewals thereof with Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown refinery, and Employees' Federation of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, Ingleside re- finery, are void and of no effect; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.