Sinclair Refining Co.

In the Matter of SINcLAiR REFINING COMPANY and W. B. McVAY Case No. C-1257.-Decided February 24, 1940 Oil Retuning Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: cooperation with union in notifying employees of right to self-organization constituted effective dissipation and disavowal of alleged acts of-Discrimination: charges of, not sustained-Complaint: dismissed. Mr. E. P. Davis, for the Board. Mr. Alfred McKnight and Mr. V. R. Tomlinson, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for the respondent. Mr. Leonard Lindquist, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by W. B. McVay, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated February 16, 1939, against Sinclair Refining Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate McVay because he had joined and assisted Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 208, herein called the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union ; and that the respondent through its superintendent and foremen at its Fort Worth Refinery otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by various means, including questioning certain employees as to their reasons for joining the Union, and assuring them that the re- spondent could do more for its employees than any union. Copies of 20 N. L. R. B., No. 75. 800 SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 801 the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and McVay. On February 22, 1939, the respondent filed with the Regional Di- rector motions to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, to make it more definite and certain; and further, to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abate or suspend the proceeding until such time as McVay or his representative availed himself or itself of the right to arbitration as provided for in the respondent's existing agreement with the Union. These motions were not ruled upon by the Regional Director. At the same time, the respondent filed an answer reserving the objections made in the above motions, admitting that Owen Baker, a foreman, had questioned certain employees in regard to their motives for join- ing the Union, and denying that by such act or by any other acts alleged in the complaint the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices. In its answer, the respondent also averred affirmatively that the "Respondent discharged the said W. B. McVay and refuses to, reinstate him for the reason that said W. B. McVay violated the rules and instructions of Respondent." Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on February 23, 24, 27, and 28, 1939, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Ex- aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues was afforded all par- ties. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties, the deposi- tion of one John Cutter was taken at Fort Worth, Texas, on March 8, 1939, and thereafter was made a part of the record in the proceeding. At the opening of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the re- spondent's motion to strike or, in the alternative, to make the com- plaint more definite and certain. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on various other motions and on objec- tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rul- ings which the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner also reserved ruling on the respondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abate or suspend the proceeding. On April 1, 1939, the respondent filed a brief which the Board has considered. Thereafter on April 14, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all par- ties. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied the re- spondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abate or suspend the proceeding until such time as McVay or his representative invoked the procedure for arbitration set up in the respondent's existing agree- ment with the Union. We have reviewed this ruling and it is hereby 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD affirmed. The Trial Examiner also found that- the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8. (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain specified affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the respondent had discharged McVay in violation of Sec- tion 8 (3) of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. McVay filed no exceptions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board, October 24, 1939, at Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel, participated in the hearing, and filed a brief in support of its argument. The Board has considered.the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sinclair Refining Company, a Maine corporation with its principal offices located in New York City, is a subsidiary of Consolidated Oil Corporation, a New York corporation. It operates refineries at Hous- ton and Fort Worth, Texas; Sand Springs, Oklahoma; Coffeyville and Kansas City, Kansas; Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania; East Chicago, Indiana; Wellsville, New York; Parco, Wyoming; and also owns a refinery at Gladewater, Texas, not now in operation. The respondent at its Fort Worth refinery, here involved, is engaged in the refining of crude oil and the production, sale, and distribution of gasoline, kerosene, and fuel oil. During the year 1938, the respondent at its Fort Worth refinery processed 1,379,229 barrels of crude oil, of which 11,266 barrels were obtained from outside the State of Texas, and approximately 18.5 per cent of the finished products were shipped to destinations outside the State of Texas. At the time of the hearing, the respondent employed approximately 132 persons at the Fort Worth refinery. IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 208, is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with Oil Workers International Union, which is in turn affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent at the Fort Worth refinery. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 803 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES` A. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion In-the latter part of 1936, the respondent and International Asso- ciation of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, concluded a collec- tive bargaining agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment of workers employed at the respondent's varioug refineries who were -members of said labor organization. Shortly after the execution of the agreement, Oil Workers Interna- tional Union, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, succeeded to the interest of International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America in the agreement, which by virtue of a renewal clause was still in effect at the time of the hearing. By the summer of 1937, between 50 and 70 of the 132 workers employed at the respondent's Fort Worth refinery- had joined the Union, and pursuant to the agreement, a grievance committee selected by members of the Union conferred with the superintendent and fore- men at the plant whenever necessary for the purpose of investigating and settling grievances. In the spring of 1937 the union grievance. committee, during the course of a meeting held during working hours, called in Owen Baker, a foreman, for questioning concerning the discharge of one B. R. Hubbell, a member of the Union. After discussion of Hubbell's dis- charge was completed, Baker stated to the union representatives that he did not understand why the men would join the Union "against Cutter," the plant' superintendent, and that "it looks to me like we were against him (Cutter) or there wouldn't be any union in the plant." In the latter part of June 1937, at which time the Union was con- ducting a drive for more members, John Cutter, the plant's superin- tendent, related to Luke Williams, the Union's leader, his experience with a union organization drive at the respondent's Tulsa refinery, which Cutter had formerly managed. Williams testified that while relating this experience, Cutter stated that men going into a union are apt to get off on the wrong course, some of them "get radical" and some of them are ignorant of union work and of. what a union stands for; that he had a man working for him at the Tulsa plant who was recognized as a leader and who, upon joining the labor organization at1 that plant, did a lot toward holding the men down, keeping them from being too radical, and setting a course for the men to follow ; that Williams was well liked by the men at the Fort Worth refinery and could accomplish the same ends there. At the same time, Cutter stated that he could do more for the men in the plant than any union '804 DECISIONS-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD could. Cutter's version of what he told Williams is that the men at the Tulsa refinery joined the labor organization because they thought they could keep the Sinclair Company from closing down the plant land could cause it to transfer the men to. another plant if it did close down; that his car foreman, "who was quite a political worker in the .neighborhood and quite a church worker and well liked," had a broad background of experience in union matters and upon being asked to join the labor organization at the Tulsa refinery, sought Cutter's advice; that Cutter told him to join, "I said, from the way he related .his experience, you could do a lot to help the boys." Cutter denied making the, exact statement that he could do more for the men than `any union could. He admitted, however, that for years he had told the men that he could do more for them than anyone. Pursuant to the agreement previously noted, executives of' the respondent and of the Union, met at various times to discuss and . agree upon proposed notices to be posted on the. respondent's bulletin board, the purpose of several of these notices being to advise the employees .of their right to affiliate with the Union. As a result of .one of such .conferences, a notice signed by Cutter was posted at the Fort Worth refinery on July 5, 1937, subsequent to the dates on which ,Baker and Cutter had engaged in the above conversations. The notice stated in substance that the respondent welcomed collective dealings with representatives of its employees and appreciated the good rela- tions that had resulted from its pursuit of such a policy. Thereafter, Cutter, upon his own initiative, posted another notice stating in sub- stance that membership in a labor organization would not affect the status, rights, duties, or privileges of any employee, The Union's failure to participate in the instant proceedings against the respondent indicates its approval of the above notices as rectifying any unfair labor practices there may have been in connec- tion with the conversations of Baker and Cutter. In view of this cooperation between the respondent and the Union in notifying the employees of their right to self-organization, which cooperation ex- emplifies the respondent's established policy of bargaining with the Union concerning grievances and conditions of employment, we are satisfied that any interference, restraint, or coercion resulting from the above conversations of Baker and Cutter has been effectively dissi- pated and disavowed. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges such interference, restraint, or coercion. B. The alleged discriminatory discharge The complaint alleged that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate McVay because he had joined and assisted the Union. In his Intermediate Report, however, the Trial Examiner concluded SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 805 that McVay was discharged for reasons other than union activities. McVay filed no exception to this finding. Having reviewed the evi- dence, we agree with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner, and accord- -ingly; we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges. such discrimination.. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of Sinclair Refining Company constitute a con- tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and 'commerce among the several States, within the meaning of-Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 208, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of W. B. McVay, within the meaning of Sec- tion 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 complaint against the respondent, Sinclair Refining Company, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 283031-41-vol. 20-52