Pioneer Natural Gas Co.

PIONEER NATURAL GAS COMPANY Pioneer Natural Gas Company I and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 16-CA-7968 and 16-CA- 8691 October 10, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND M EMRIRS JENKINS ANt PENII.I.O On July 23, 1980, Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,2 and conclusions:' of the Administrative Law modified herein.4 Respondent's nallte appear a ielnlrded aI tlle hearing Respondent ha, excepted to ccrta tc rdtlil i ti nri;lgs ad h the Adminlstratle l.a v Jdge It is he lBoard', c.stabhshed po hc 11 n t overrule an adminisratrive las udg'cs resolutltl,il with rspcct o credl- hility lless thie clear prepondcldancc of all of the rlc;.lnt Ct 1il1c c, ,ill inces us that he rCeSI ili zi are ticorrect Stanidard D)rr ltl/[ Prd'ls. Inc., 91 NI KRB 44 (10()). enid n18 F 2d h62 (3d ('r 1951) % hi. ,i carefully evxaiinnnted te icL trd id find ieo basih fIor r erlng hl1 t filldgs tit i ccplit s R .. l nildlmlt conil Ind,. iltetr alta, that the Adiltllltri lise l.aw Judge as prcjudiced agaillsl Rcsptiondenl. iltd unlidul pi,- sured it to settle this case We find itno itnrit In this ttlltellloil alrcfill relci of tL rcord shos 11it itltenicril or thcr C 'ldetcC illndicating hia, r pretuillc agailil Respondtienl o tle Adnisllartlli, c I i. Jdg.e' part ,A\,,'iing ar 'ucidl that the Admtinitratic I ludge iladc. as A- leged. oil fth -rc o/rd , lrnnicnt t t- tstttutilig rdLI p1l Llrc I SItIL this case. it as inaurs lhne lt upinl coulnsel for Respolcnl Int nlllcdi.altN to Ic quest tha;lt any alleged corminert he repealted on Ihe record to nmake a tiniel iObitciln1l thertio. anl d It nllvt tlat lthe Addministrati. i as Judge disqtialify hinmself Counsel for Resplondclt did Inot do s, h hclin of inlprolpriwl uas i ,t made nil after thte Adnlnistralle L.as Jldge had issi'. d h1it) tecillnr hcreil Ulnlder these circumnarlcs, r vc finid R-spond- ellt cntention is Ilot tIlnely ralsed In any evel the Administrative I a Judgc's firndings and coticlusionn are ully supported hy the recolrd c idenic and ire il accord s ith appi- cable precedent Accrdingly Ih crte no basis fr fiding prcludlce on the part of the Adminlstratle Las. Judge Responidenl furtiler coinlend I the Atdinli ratile Lass Judge's theory for finding that )ehborah J ;Gallegios as anl uafull discharged itl viola- tion of Sec. 8(a)() "as not enhbodied il the allegations rf the complait and therefore denied Responldent its IIe process right tIo full5 defend itself. llovever, thc issue of hether (iallegos ia, discharged for her i- isttnce that ather Clirlokce take a cmilplaint tIo their supi lsor . as fully litigated and the nlls-oiduct fnilrl :s a ,-carl relatedl to ti con- duct spclifically alleged Ihrefor c l fid io ncri in Re nden i 'i contentit oni See Intrntltlmall Itngshorm it's tAoc,//oiter. -tl- I (]0 Ltat . 814 i tIt (i uljMarrttlr .As .iatlui,). 215 N RB 45. 461 40t4 (li 14) a he Admliniira lll I l. Jludgle t- lnd that cliImInt tadc I, S up( I visor llaltherit clearl, trced to rtrain ;ld i coetc triploct'c, il IJt titn Of Sec (a)( itt te Act trllrar\ to Respondenit, this nlatter ssa, full 5 litigated and the Adtlrisiraltse l[.a Julgsf tlitng .;, prlper towever. thie Adnlimiistratli e I av Judge did nolt pc ficatll' Inilude his finding in his Coiclusmons if I a V'le s ill anicnd the (itllt..l nllns I1 I.aw t reflect the Adninistratc I av. Judge' findings 253 NLRB No. 3 Amended Conclusions of Law Delete the Administrative Law Judge's Conc!u- sion of Law 3 and substitute the following: "3. By interrogating and threatening its employ- ces concerning their union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Lav% Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pioneer Natural Gas Company, Amarillo Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the folloNVing for paragraph l(d): "(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Admlinistrative L.aw Judge. NtMI:IHR P): NLt I.O . concurring: I agree with my colleagues that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act as set out in the Administrative I.aw Judge's Decision and as modified by the Board, and that Deborah J. Galle- gos as unlawfully discharged for having engaged in protected concerted activity in iolation of Sec- tion 8(a)( ) of the Act. I do not, however, rely on A.lill'uiu C(ushion Co., Inc., 221 NLRB3 999 (1975), or its progeny in so finding. The record reflects and the Administrative Law Judge found that Wilborn. a persistent author and disseminator of racial epithets, had, at the time in question, racially insulted Hall, a black employ- ee, on a day when Hall was absent from work. Gallegos, an American Indian, also at times the object of Wilborn's uninvited racial slurs, prevailed upon Hall to report this problem to Supervisor 4 Thc A\lministratilc I a. Judge inctludcd a; hrtu;l cts;le alid-dl-il pro i.m Ili hi rec lnl ltctde l (l )rdter I It /i 1.h1 llod,. , 11o. 242 NI R li 1I f 7I l I 7) t li o tltart I, tlith , sI t ilch all irt . I s \ilrautt'd ontil' A hll a I lt liti[ s slhoti ,, ha, ., rl \r ,llt 'tlc li e Act, ir has .I) gaged ini s t ) egreglous ,ir sideprr-a,! lil illtt lUllt as io delionlrat a gtit.ral dlslgrt flor th, critntlc s' tltIIailIlliIl sI atutor, rights We,' filld this I ds tll fail ll.,' the h.,.e ,ategtr We Ihertcfre sitLi tult a na.rr{s ce; se ;Irlit-doist pr xisl Ill ir ft 1I hr l tile ITl tele re, tl TIlldCld )rtder atid l t Icotfrt ti it tI ce lcitldngi i , .- ,rtl.mi-c sstl, fits partl disset , 11 1 )t/?t l ita] ( .rpor,l Oth 2kt N R 14 tI' ini, Mntilc-r Jt'ktik s ,isutli ssard initr-t , h t hj, kpi', ti l a I ll 1th i r iiil.L s't 'rl It tIerlCl 17 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Goldston. Hall did speak with Goldston and told him that Gallegos had discussed the situation with her and that she had come to Goldston at Galle- gos' insistence. It is the discussion by Gallegos and Hall of this problem and its possible solution, and the fact that Hall took action based upon this dis- cussion, that I find to be protected concerted activ- ity. In addition, it is also clear that Respondent had knowledge of this activity by virtue of Hall's dis- closure to Supervisor Goldston that her discussion with Gallegos had prompted the report of the inci- dent to Goldston. I also agree that the subject of Hall's complaint was within the purview of the Act, since racial remarks made by other employees affect the condition of employment of all Respond- ent's employees. Thus, while I would not find that Respondent violated the Act by failing to prevent Wilborn from insulting her fellow employees be- cause of their race or national origin, see Jubilee Manufacturing Company, 202 NLRB 272 (1973), 1 nonetheless find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act when it discharged Gallegos for making concert with Hall to alleviate an intolerable working condition. See, generally, U.S. Postal Serv- ice, 239 NLRB 962 (1978). APPENDIX Norilc. To EMPLOYEES POSTIrI) BY ORDER OF HE NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees about their union activities. WE WILL NOT discharge, and refuse to rein- state or otherwise discriminate against, our employees because they engage in protected concerted activities or activities on behalf of a labor organization. WE Will. NOT reprimand our employees be- cause of our employees' activities on behalf of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WIL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. WE WILL. offer Deborah J. Gallegos imme- diate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantial- ly equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed. WE WIl.l. make whole Deborah J. Gallegos for any loss she may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against her, with interest. WE wii.. rescind, remove from our records, and give no further consideration to the writ- ten reprimands which we issued to employees Ninnevah Kay Younger, Biolanda S. Benitez, and Deborah J. Gallegos on or about June 6, 1978, because of their union activities. PIONIEER NATURAI. GAS COMPANY DECISION Si I NIl NT 01 I HI-. CAS}! J. PARGEN ROHI-RISON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard on December 4 and 5, 1978, August 21, 1979, and February 5, 1980, at Amarillo, Texas. The complaint in Case 16-CA-7968, which issued on August 4, 1978, and was amended at the hearing, alleges that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interro- gating its employees about their union activities, and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by reprimanding three of its employees because of its employees' union activities. The complaint in Case 16-CA-8691, which issued on October 9, 1979, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employee Deborah J. Gallegos. A motion to reopen the record and consolidate the two above-cited cases was filed by the General Counsel on October 11, 1979. That motion was granted by order dated November 28, 1979. Upon the entire record.' and from my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I hereby make the following: FINI)INGS A. Commerce During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the entity involved in these proceedings is Pioneer Natural Gas Company, a wholly owned division of Pioneer Cor- poration. At times material, Respondent has maintained an office and place of business in Amarillo, Texas, where it is engaged in the transmission, distribution, and sale of natural gas. Respondent admitted and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that, during a repre- sentative 12-month period, it purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Texas which it received at its Amarillo, Texas, facili- ty. B. Labor Organization During the hearing Respondent admitted, and I find, that Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International I The General Counsel's matilnll t correct the record appears to he well taken and is hereby granted 18 PIONEIR NA'tlURAI (GAS CO()MP'ANY Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. C. Ile IEvidence During March 1978. the Charging Parly (Union) startl- ed an organizing campaign among Respondenit's emplo?- ees in Respondent's entire system. The organizing cam- paign did not begin at the Amarillo facility until nmid to late May 1')78. The campaign was terminated by the Union on October 13, 1978. During May 1978, and subsequently, some 16 to 17 employees were assigned to Respondent's 7th Floor, Gas Measurement Department," Approximately 15 of those employees were xomeln, including alleged discri- minatees Deborah J. Gallegos. Biolanda S. Belite. alltl Ninnevah Kay Younger. During May. all three of the al- leged discrimiinatees commenced activities on behalf oft' the Union. Ninnevah Kay Younger testified that on May 24 she told her supervisor. James latzheim that "we're going to try to get a union in here at Pioneer" Blatzhein denied that he and Younger discussed the Union on May 24. However. Blatzheim admitted that Younger told him on May 26 that she had attended a union meeting on May 25, and that the Union was going to help get the employees more pay and better insurance. Biolanda lBenitcz testified that Supervisor James Gold- ston asked her, o May 25, if she were going to attend the meeting that night. Goldston said that "it had its good points and its bad, you know and [she] had to take into consideration that Pioneer had good benefits." Gold- ston admitted that on May 25 he asked Benitez if she were going to attend "the meeting tonight." However, according to Goldston's testimony, the conversation in all other respects, which Benitez recalled as ocurring otn May 25, actually occurred on July 12, 1978. Goldston admitted that, on May 25, it was common knowledge there was going to be a union meeting that night. The union meeting was held on the evening of May 25. The only "7th Floor" employees that attended that meeting were Younger and Benitez. On May 30, Assistant Director of the Gas Measure- ment Department Guy Bufkin called a meeting of em- ployees in the conference room. Bufkin told the employ- ees to go ahead and attend the union meeting. Employee Marie Escoto testified to a conversation with Supervisor Goldston a couple of days after the May 30 company meeting. Escoto testified that Goldston brought up the Union and asked her if she had filled out a card. Escoto did not answer. Goldston said that she did not have to answer because they would know who filled out one and who did not. Goldston testified that on one occasion he jokingly said to Escoto, "You didn't sign a card, did you." However, according to Goldston, he asked that question of Escoto on October 13, after the Union withdrew from the campaign. Goldston denied discussing the Union with Escoto around June 2. Younger testified that on June 2 her supervisor, Blatz- heim, told her that he and another supervisor, Bob Brotherton, had gone down to Guy Bufkin's office and had tried to talk Bufkin "out of the allegations brought against [Younger]." O()n June 6, Younger. Benitte7, aid Gallegos were repri- manded by Blatzheii. Bilatzheim testified that prior to the reprimands he was given three handwritten sheets hb i)irector of' Gas NMeastlurentu t Bob Spikes. Spikes told We know that these girls hase been giving us prob- lems for a long time and as their immediate supersi- sor, I feel like you should. you know. do the repri- mand and here's the points I would like you to cover and he sure ad emphasize that not all three are guilty of all the points, bhut each . . . you knoss collectively the have done them, all three have done all those, and .arn them. Blatzheim met with the three employees individuallx. Blatzheit testified that h did not read verbatim the three handwritten sheets (that he had been gi en h\ Spikes) to the employees. but that. in essence, he did state to them what swas contained on those three sheets. The sheets read: I. Critical of others, (felloss employees arid super- visors). You have a right to your opinion but do not try to cram your opinion down someone else's throat. They don't always appreciate it. II. Deliberate mistakes will not be tolerated no matter what the reason. You do your job and don't worry stO milch about hat everyone else is doing. III. Hlassling other employees about how the do their job, or sshat jobs they are bidding on or any- thing else that is nonre of your business will not be tolerated. IV. Threats (of violetnce) against other employees (either on or off the job) which can be prosed ill not be tolerated. V. If there i someonre ou don't like, fellosw em- ployee or ulper\,isor, it is up to you to make ecry effort to cover it up aid be courteous to that person. We all haze to work together to get the job done aid deliberate attempts to antagonize people will not be tolerated. VI. If you think you can tell me what you will or will not do and I can't tell you, then you had better keep quiet about it because it serves no useful pur- pose in this office for any of you to brag about. You are all good efficient workers and I person- ally would hate to lose you but (between the three of you) specific complaints have been made in each of the matters mentioned above. These complaints are in writing and have been placed in your person- nel jackets. The purpose of this meeting is to make it plain to you that this behavior is not permissible and if it should happen again the guilty party will be imme- diately dismissed. It is up to you to convince the others that you have no desire to butt in to what is strictly their business. By the same token. if I order you to go help with any job in the gas measurement department, you will be expected to work with that person [unclear] no matter ssho it is. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While past is past and your job depends on what happens from this point on but make no mistake about it if you think you can continue to act as you have in the past, you will be dismissed for it. It's all up to you. Do you have any questions. A written record of what I have said in this meeting will go into your personnel jacket and there will be no doubt that you have been warned. I sincerely hope that this is the last time anything goes in your personnel jacket but comments about the efficient way you handle your jobs but no matter how good you are we can not tolerate the [unclear] you are causing in the department as a whole. Younger testified that when Blatzheim called her in on June 6 he told her that he had some do's and don't's to read and that he proceeded to read from a yellow sheet of paper. Younger testified that she then asked, "Jim, I don't understand these charges. Could you tell me what they're about?" Blatzheim replied, "I don't understand them either, Kay. Maybe it has something to do with your union activities." Benitez testified that Blatzheim called her in on June 6, and told her things that she was not to do. Blatzheim then told her that her work was excellent and "he just kept telling me he couldn't understand what was going on, were they trying to get at us three girls or trying to get at him." Blatzheim admitted that he did call in and individually reprimand Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos on June 6. Blatzheim testified that he had nothing to do with the dec;sion to administer those reprimands. Blatzheim testi- fied that he did not say that he did not understand the charges nor did he tell Younger that the charges may have something to do with her union activities. Younger testified that after her reprimand on June 6 she was having lunch with her husband in the parking area when Blatzheim came over to them. Younger's hus- band asked Blatzheim what was going on up there. Blatzheim replied, "I don't know what's going on. I don't understand it. It's got to be something with Kay with her union activities. I think, Bob, I would get a lawyer and I'd see if I could get something done on that." Blatzheim admitted talking to Younger and her husband in the parking lot on June 6. However, Blatz- heim testified that it was Younger's husband that raised the question of Younger's union activities. Blatzheim tes- tified that he was asked by Mr. Younger, "Do you think this has anything to do with Kay's union activities?" Before Blatzheim could answer, Kay Younger said, "We both know it does." Blatzheim then said, "No, I don't think so." On June 7 and 8, Younger and Benitez discussed seek- ing assistance in the handling of their reprimands. They decided to call a labor attorney and found attorney John Cosmic's name in the yellow pages. According to Youn- ger, she placed the call. She identified herself by name to Cosmic and told him "I'm having trouble at work." Cosmic then asked if she had a union. Younger told Cosmic that they had no union but were trying to form one. Cosmic then said that he thought he had talked to Younger's husband. Cosmic explained that he was Pio- neer's attorney and that Pioneer had an open-door policy so Younger could take her concerns to anyone in the su- pervisory hierarchy. Mr. Cosmic testified that Younger had called his office and talked with him but he denied asking her anything about a labor union. The complaint in Case 16-CA-8691 alleges that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) 2 and (3) of the Act by discharging Deborah Gallegos. Gallegos was discharged on June 26, 1979. Gallegos was discharged after another employee, Velma Hall, in- formed her supervisor, James Goldston, that Gallegos had asked Hall to come to Goldston because of racial re- marks made by employee Helen Wilborn. Gallegos told Hall that, on a day Hall was absent, Helen Wilborn stated that she did not want to work with Hall. Wilborn called Hall a "nigger" and a "big black buck." Gallegos asked Hall to go to Goldston so that he could get to the bottom of the matter. Gallegos, who is an American Indian, is one of several minority employees in the seventh floor Gas Measure- ment Department. Gallegos testified that Wilborn had made derogatory remarks about blacks, Mexicans, and Indians on a number of previous occasions in conversa- tions with employees. That fact was confirmed to Velma Hall by employee Biolanda Benitez. After Hall went to Goldston, Respondent called in Gallegos to determine if she actually made the remarks to Hall. Gallegos admitted that she had. She was then terminated. Respondent's supervisors admitted that they were not concerned with whether Gallagos was telling the truth when she told Hall of Wilborn's remarks. In fact, Wilborn testified that she was not questioned by Respondent until the day after she heard of Gallegos' discharge. Respondent, when it discharged her, told Gallegos that she had been warned previously. CONCI SIONS A. The Reprimands The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated the Act by reprimanding employees Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos on June 6, 1978, because of the union activ- ities or concerted activities of its employees. The evidence is not in dispute that the three alleged discriminatees became involved in activities on behalf of the Union around May 24 to May 26, 1978. Benitez first learned of the Union's campaign on May 24. She then told Younger of the activity. Employees, including Beni- tez, Younger, and Gallegos, were told of a planned union meeting on May 25. Younger and Benitez were the only "7th Floor" employees that attended the May 25 union meeting. From May 26 on, Benitez, Younger, and Galle- gos were the ones that "talked most about the good T he complaint in par. 8, by using he language, "or concerted activi- ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mututal aid or pro- telion," alleges all 8(a)(1) discharge violation as ell as an 8(a)(3) viola- t lion 20 PIO)NE:ER NATURAI. GAS COMPANY points of the Union. We three were the ones who passed out union cards."' Supervisor James Blatzheim admitted that he learned of Younger's union activities on May 26. Blatzheim testi- fied that he knew nothing of the Union activites of Beni- tez and Gallegos until June 8. However, I find that the record demonstrates that Respondent was aware of the alleged discriminatees' union activity during May 1978. Supervisor Goldston, who, like Blatzheim, worked on the seventh floor in the vicinity of Younger, Gallegos. and Benitez, admitted that it was common knowledge that the employees were having a union meeting on May 25. According to the testimony of Younger, which I credit, she told Blatzheim on May 24, that she was going to try to get a Union in Pioneer. Thereafter, on May 26, Younger told a group of employees in Blatz- heim's presence that the May 25 union meeting had gone well and she had some cards for them to sign. Benitez recalled that the conversation, which involved several of the employees in the presence of Blatzheim, occurred on May 25 rather than May 26. Nevertheless, she confirms that the Union was discussed and that Blatzheim overheard their conversation. Benitez testified that Supervisor Goldston asked her, on May 25, if she were going to the meeting that night. Goldston admitted that he did ask Benitez if she were going to the meeting on May 25. Although Goldston did not specifically ask if she were going to a union meeting, Goldston testified that it was common knowledge that a union meeting was planned that night. Both Benitez and Younger appeared to testify credi- bly. I was impressed with their demeanor and their testi- mony impressed me as candid and consistent. In view of the union activities of Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos, and the above-mentioned facts, I am convinced that Re- spondent, through Supervisors Blatzheim and Goldston, was aware of those activities during late May 1978. On the basis of the entire record, and especially on the basis of comments Supervisor Blatzheim made to em- ployee Younger, I am convinced that Respondent violat- ed the Act by reprimanding employees Younger, Beni- tez, and Gallegos on June 6, 1978, At the conclusion of his reprimand of Younger, Super- visor Blatzheim told Younger, "Maybe it [the reprimand] has something to do with your union activities."4 Later, on June 6, Blatzheim told Younger and her husband in the parking area that he did not understand the charges 3 This statement as takcn from IHnitez' pretrial affidavit s', hich as offered into esidence h Respondent and received Aithout ohbjection I4 credit Yrounger's testimony il this regard Although Blatilheim denied the comment linking the replimand to Youngers union actis tics, I find that his estimonmy cannot he credited. latzheim's testimony as often inconsistent and conflicling IFor example. he first testified thal before June 6. 178, he had orally reprimanded Younger about 12 times and that 3 or 4 of those reprimands involved conflicts hetwceein Younger and other emplosees later. Av hile ilil ot direct, Hlatiheim testified that he had orally reprimanded Younger six or secn times and only nte of those reprimands inolsed cnflicts hbctueen her and another mplosec Blatzheim also testified hat Supcr, isor Goldston complaicd to hl about Deborrah J Ciallego alo a doe ,cn times tllocser. latihcimn had earlier testified that (oldstoin's complaints, abhout all of his (Hlatzhcrn' l emphlyees totaled about a do,ren and that "It's got to be something with Kay [Younger] with her ullion activities." Regardless of Respondent's motivation in awarding the three reprimands, Blatzheim's comments would clearly tend to restrain and coerce employees from engaging in union activities and( are, therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Moreover, I am convinced on the basis of Blatzheim's comments to Younger, and the other evidence, that Re- spondent issued the three reprimands because of its em- ployees' union activities According to Respondent, it based its decision to rep- rimandll the three employees on written complaints sub- mitted hby other employees. Those complaining employ- ees also worked on the "7th Floor," but were supervised by Goldston. James latzheim supervised the three al- leged discriminatees. According to Assistant Director B3ufkin, he directed that the employees complaining about Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos submit those com- plaints in writing. Bufkin testified that he received the written statements from the employees around April 15. According to Bufkin, around that date, April 15, he de- cided to reprimand Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos. The evidence demonstrated that conflicts among the "7th Floor" employees were common, especially con- flicts between employees supervised by Goldston and those supervised by Blatzheim. However, the April 15 written statements represented the first occasion on which employees submitted written statements regarding those conflicts. There is no doubt that the conflicts among the "7th Floor" employees created difficult personnel problems. However, due to a number of factors, I am persuaded that Younger. Benitez, and Gallegos would not have re- ceived the June 6 reprintands but for their union activity. 3Blatzheim admitted that the employee charges lodged against Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos were, in the ma- jority, vague. He admitted that individually the charges were not so significant to warrant any more than an oral reprimand. Nevertheless, Younger. Benitez, and Gallegos were told that the charges were being placed in their personnel jackets and that a repeat of the incidents would result in their immediate dismissal. Assistant Director of Gas Measurement Bufkin, a high- level supervisor in charge of some 50 employees, testified that he does not regularly become involved in repri- mands of employees. Nevertheless, Bufkin in apparent consultation with his boss, Director of Gas Measurement Spikes, made the decision to reprimand Younger, Beni- tez, and Gallegos. Spike wrote out the three handwritten sheets which Blatzheim used in reprimanding the three. None of the low-level supervisors were directly involved in the decision even though they are the ones that cus- tomarily reprimand their employees. Additionally, the timing of the reprimands is suspect. Bufkin testified that he decided to reprimand the three alleged discriminatees shortly after he received written statements from other employees. ufkin recalled his de- cision occurred around April 15. Other supervisors testi- fied that Bufkin received those statements in early May. In either event it is clear that Bufkin received the em- 2I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR REL.ATIONS OARD ployees' complaints about Younger, Benitez, and Galle- gos several weeks before he learnled of any union activi- ties in their department. Nevertheless, no explanation was offered as to why the three were not reprimanded until June 6, less than 2 weeks after the three com- menced union activities. Both Supervisors Goldston and Blatzheim testified about the alleged discriminatees engaging in conduct which warranted discipline. However, when asked when the incidents on which the reprimands were based actu- ally occurred, Goldston testified that he did not recall.5 Blatzheim recalled some conflicts between the three, arind other employees, but those incidents occurred in 1977 and early 1978. In finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by reprimanding Younger, Benitez, and Gallegos, i am mindful that in many respects Respondent demon- strated little or no union animus. Nevertheless, the sever- al factors mentioned above require me to find a viola- tion. I am influenced in my decision in large measure by Blatzheim's comments. Additionally, the timing of the reprimands, occurring shortly after the commencement of the alleged discriminatees' union activities, but long after they engaged in the conduct for which they were allegedly reprimanded, was persuasive. Also I am con- vinced that both Blatzheim and Goldston colored their testimony to build a stronger case against Younger, Beni- tez, and Gallegos.fi That fact convinced me that, at least in the views of those two supervisors, Respondent felt it had something to hide. Therefore, I find the reprimands constituted activity violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. B. The 8(at(l) Allegations 1. Goldston's May 25 interrogation Biolanda Benitez testified that on May 25 she talked with James Goldston in Vera Isham's office on the sev- enth floor. According to Benitez, Goldston asked her if she were going to the meeting that night. Benitez told Goldston that she was. Goldston then pointed out that "it had its good points and its bad, you know, and I had to take it into consideration that Pioneer had good bene- fits." 2. Goldston's June 1 interrogation Employee Marie Escoto testified that, a couple of days after May 30, she discussed her job with James Goldston I note however that under direct enaminatioon (ioldsitl, in dncllllg two incidents which are alleged as violallve, testified t three clersa- tions which he precisely placed as occurring on May 25, July 12. arind October 13, 1978 6 In that regard there were confnict, in (iold,ton's and ll;aizhein's cr- siors of the number of occasions ,on which Younger, enitez. and (alle- gos created personnel conflicts as opposed to similar tccurrences by ctl- pleyces supervised by G(oldslon Also, tBlatzheim's testimolly ascillated in that regard. Molreover, Younger as idetitified as one of the three chief troublemakers even though, at one point it his testinmlny. llallheim admited that he had reprimanded her for that type of inrfraction on tly one prior occasion and hat occasilon iolved all oral reprinlauld Coi- verscle. Blatzheim recalled numerous cilomplaiits about oe priular empliLye, Vera lsham Ishalm was nevertlheless considered to he less of a trouhlemaker than Younger according to Blazheimn's tesmol in Goldston's office. After they finished discussing Esco- to's job, Goldston asked her if she had filled out a card. Escoto did not respond. Goldston said that she did not have to answer, "they would know who filled one out and who didn't." 3. Cosmic's June 8 interrogation Ninnevah Younger selected attorney John Cosmic's name out of the yellow pages and called Cosmic. Ac- cording to her testimony, she gave her name and indicat- ed that she had a problem at work. Cosmic then asked if she had a union. Later, during their conversation, it became apparent that Younger worked at Pioneer. At that point, Cosmic advised her that he represented Pio- neer. Cosmic then told Younger that Pioneer had an open-door policy. James Goldston admitted that on May 25 he asked Biolanda Benitez if she was going to attend the meeting that night, and that Benitez told him that she was going to attend the meeting. Goldston admitted that it was common knowledge that the employees were having a union meeting that night. Goldston denied that the May 25 conversation occurred in the office area and he denied that on that occasion he mentioned the union having good and bad points. Goldston also denied that he talked with Escoto on the date she alleged in her testimony. Goldston admitted asking Escoto, "jokingly," that, "You didn't sign a card, did you?" As indicated above, I was not impressed with Goldston's testimony. To the extent their versions differ. I credit the testimony of Benlitez and Escoto. In accord- ance with their testimony, and in consideration of the full record, including my other findings herein, I find that on both May 25 and June 1 Goldston interrogated employees in violation of Section 8(a)(l).7 John Cosmic admitted talking with Younger but denies that he asked if she had a union. However, I find nothing wrong with Cosmic's comments even if they occurred in accord with Younger's recollection. It is apparent that the context of their conversation made Cosmic's inquiry as to whether she had or was in a union logical and non- violative. After Younger indicated that she had a work problem, a logical question from any labor attorney would be "do you have a union at your workplace." That particular question is important if the attorney plans to address himself to how the employee can handle her problem. Obviously, if there is a union contract, the con- tract may have procedures for handling the particular problem involved. Therefore, I find nothing illegal in Cosmic's comments. C. Gallegos' Dircharge The General Counsel contends that Deborah Gallegos was discharged because of her union activities or her concerted activities. I find that the evidence supports this allegation. In the instant case, facts demonstrate that Gallegos en- gaged in concerted activity by soliciting another employ- I7 ndo l.ahorutoruwi. Inc., 239 Nl[,R 1074 (1978), ( & F Storce, Inc., D & Sup-ervulu Division. 221 NIRH 1321 (1976) 22 PIO()NItR NAU I RAT (AS CO()M1'ANY ee, Velma Hall, to take a complaint to supervision. The evidence is not in conflict that Gallegos asked Hall to go to her (Hall's) supervisor and coniplain aout racial re- marks allegedly made by another employee. In considering whether G(allegos' activity was protect- ed concerted activity. I view the following factors as sig- nificant: A number of employees in Respondent's "7th Floor CGas Measurement Department" were considered "racial minorities." including the alleged discriminatee Deborah Gallegos. Gallegos contended that employee Helen Wilborn frequtently made racial derogatory re- marks about minorities, including Negroes. Mexicans, and Indians. During June 1979. Gallegos told employee Velma H1all that Helen Wilbornl had stated that she could not stand "error checking" with Hall because Hall was black. Gal- legos, on several occasions over a period of several days, asked Hall to go to her supervisor and comiplain about Wilborn's alleged remarks. On June 26, 1979, Gallegos was discharged. Respoid- ent's supervisors admitted that in deciding to discharge they were not interested in whether Gallegos had truth- fully related to Hall what Hlelen Wilborn had said. Rc- spondent was interested only in whether Gallegos had made the remarks to Hall. When Gallegos admitted tell- ing Hall what she conitended Wilborn had said, she was discharged. Obviously, the Act is not designed to protect employ- ees' activity in spreading rumors or in creating a basis for discord among other employees. However, in the instant situation, Gallegos was discharged after she insisted that Hall take the problem up with her supervisor. Gallegos testified that she asked Hall to go to Supervisor Gold- ston with the Wilborn matter because she felt "that was the best way to go about it instead of us taking care of it ourselves. That way he [Supervisor Goldston would know what was said and who said it and that way we can clear it up." The record demonstrates that Gallegos was discharged because she insisted that Hall go to her supervisor and "clear it up." Respondent, in its brief, stated. "[T]he only question remaining is whether the prompting by an em- ployee of another employee to complain to her supervi- sor about alleged remarks is a protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act." I am convinced on the basis of the record that Gallegos was discharged be- cause she insisted that Hall go to her supervisor regard- ing the Wilborn matter. The record is replete with in- stances of discord among employees, including testimony regarding several instances of employees talking about other employees and supervisors. However, with the ex- ception of the reprimands alleged violative in this case and the discharge of Gallegos, no employee received a written reprimand, suspension, or discharge for engaging in such activity. Furthermore, it is clear that the investi- gation surrounding this incident was aimed squarely at Gallegos. There is no evidence indicating that Respond- ent engaged in a thorough investigation into Helen Wil- born's activities In fact, as indicated above, Wilborn tes- tified that she was not even questioned about the Galle- gos-Hall matter until after Gallegos had been discharged. In Diaigno'tic ('cterr loipitul Corp. o/' i'AUas, 22S NLR3 1215, 1217 (1977)1. the BIoard discussed the pro- tectillon which the Act affords employees engaged in con- certed activities. Ihe Ioard in commienrting on .-llehiu C'i7nht io(.. Itc.." intdicated that the correct reading of that case is that acti'lity ill be deened concerted in nature if it relates to a matter of comnmon concern and (in lllw) those colinion concerns will be found fith respect to violationIs of the safety statute Le hich createdj thet general hazard for etlployees' 1 he Act protects em- ployees rights to engage inl concerted actlvilties in protlsl Of exual and racial discrirninatiorl hy eplosers. '" he question here is: D)oes that protection extend to concert- ed complaints ahout other emplosees racial remarks' I find the Act does protect such activities. Working conditionis are not limited to ob ious matters such as wages and hours of work. Employees are also protected in activities designed to improve orking con- ditions which involve safety, health aid such matters as phltsical comfort. Gallegos testified that the instant situa- tion il as a matter of longstanditng; i.e., employee Helen ;'ilhorn had frequently made racial remarks about Ne- groes. Indians. and Mexican mplovees Such an atnlos- phlrce is ohblio)sly uncomfortable for minority emplo ees that overhear those remarks. Employees should be able to take those matters to the super, isor for corrective action, In my view, such complaints, wherI. as here, they in'volve concerted acitixiy, fall within the scope of pro- tection afforded by the Act. Additionally, the testimony of Supervisors Brotherton and l3ufkin demoristrates that the decision to discharge Gallegos was based, in part, upon her receipt of the June 6, 1978, reprimand In view of my above finding herein that that reprimatnd was given in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the use of that reprimand in determin- ing to discharge (lallegos renders the discharge violative of Section 8(a)(3) as well as Section 8(a)( ). I so find. ( i)N I SIO(NS (t I. \; 1. Respondent Pioneer Natural Gas Company, a wholly owned division of Pioneer Corporation, is an em- ployer engaged i commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(0) and (7) of the Act. 2. Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent, by issuing written reprimands to its em- ployees, Ninnevah Kay Younger. Biolanda S. Benitez, and Deborah J. Gallegos, on or about June 6, 1978, and by discharging its emnployee Deborah J. Gallegos on or about June 26, 1979, and thereafter refusing to reinstate "221 NRB Stat) 1's751 SC. lis-} -tat1,rl,/?l -tl"'rolunt -san,'J,,r InI . 2 NI R 71 tI l " /),...m ( ah,ct (....pan. In . 228 Nl IR 2) (17' . t'l l 'r u 17ln (o/rtpl,. 23h Ni R1 '21 Il '8). sCe ,11CLl~.1 l i ll th d.itll l Jh.ihl/sC f uftlu out lm ( {tp rt-,tr2 2( 12 N R 22 I 1 .l / i, I; hb r lp o 1t;m. I 2 Nt.RIt I 7 I 71 i ) 23 D ICISI()NS ()F NA II()NAL. IABI()R RELALIONS B()ARD employee Gallegos, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfiair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices by an unnamed agent orally interrogating an employee concerning the Union on or about June 8, 1978. Tit, RIMI-I)Y lHaving found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section (a)(I) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My recommended Order will require Respondent to offer Deborah J. Gallegos full and immediate reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent position, arid to make Deborah J. Gallegos whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, and that it post appropriate notices. The backpay shall be computed and interest thereon shall be added ill the manner prescribed in hF W. Woolworth Comnpany , 9() NLRB 289 (1950), and Floridu Steel Corporation, 231 NILRB 651 (1977).'' Upon the foregoing findings of fact arid conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: ORDER]2 The Respondent, Pioneer Natural Gas Company, a wholly owned division of Pioneer Corporation, Amaril- lo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors aid assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, arid coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by interrogating its employees about their union activities. ~ See. generally, Is Plurtnhing & Iating (o, 18 Nt.RIB 71 (9'h2 Z In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 4h of the Rules and Regulatioins of Ihe National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pro, id d in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations., he adopted h the 1oalrd alld become it, findings, conclusions, and Order, and all obhjections thereto shall he deemed waived for all purposes (b) Terminating and refusing to reinstate its employees because of their protected concerted activities or union activities. (c) Issuing written reprimands to its employees be- cause of their union activities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,. or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. lake the following affirmative action which is deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer imnmediate and full reinstatement to Deborah J. (iallegos to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej- udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make Deborah J. Gallegos whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the section of the l)ecision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Rescind, remove from its records, and give no fur- ther consideration to the written reprimands which it issued its employees Ninnevah Kay Younger. Liolanda S. Benitez, and Deborah J. Gallegos, on or about June 6, 1978, because of its employees' union activities. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec- ords necessary or useful to a determination of the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Amarillo, Texas, facility including its bulletin board normally used by employees in the "7th Floor Gas Measurement Department," copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."':' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall be duly signed and posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, i conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. '' In the escient that this Order is enforced by a Judgment Iof a Unlited States Court of Appeals, the wlords i the notice reading "'osted by )rder of the Naltonal L.abor R elations Board" shall read "Post'ed Pursu- anl to a Judgmennt of the lnited States Court of Appeals tinforcing anll ()rder of the National l.ahor Relations Hoard " 24