Continental Oil Co.

In the Matter Of CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 231 Case No. C-911.-Decided March 29, 1940 Oil Production and Refining Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion- Company-Dominated Union : domination of and interference with formation and administration , contribution of support ; dissolution company-dominated Employee Representation Plan by employer ; participation personnel supervisor and former Plan representatives in formation ; use of company facilities ; pay- ment of 27 employees by employer for time spent drafting constitution ; sub- mission constitution to company official and company counsel for inspection before adoption by employees at plant election ; contrasting attitudes of super- visory employees showing hostility to outside unions; grant of exclusive recog- nition and limited check-off ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining ; employer ordered to reimburse employees for amounts checked off as dues for company-dominated union-Discrimination : charges, as to one employee, dismissed. Mr. Harry C. Duncan, Jr., and Mr. Elmer P. Davis, for the Board. Mr. William H. Zwick, of Ponca City, Okla., for the Respondent. Mr. Maurice Daly and Mr. W. J. Trombley, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Oil Workers Union. , Marls & Maxis, by Mr. L. A. Maxis and Mr. L. R. Marls, of Ponca City, Okla., for the Continental Union. Mr. Abraham L. Kaminstein, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 231, hereafter called the Oil Workers Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Edwin A. Elliott, Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated May 27, 1938, against Continental Oil Company, a corporation, Ponca City, Okla- homa, 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), (2), and (3) and 22 N. L. R. B., No. 9. 61 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Oil Workers Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent, intending to form and dominate a labor organization, called a mass meeting of its employees and through its agents, formed, assisted, and dominated the Continental Employees Union of Ponca City Area, herein called the Continental Union; that at all times since the organization of the Continental Union, the respondent accorded preferential treatment to members of the Continental Union and expressed antipathy toward any outside union; that the respondent, in furtherance of its intention to frustrate the organization of its employees for the purpose of collective bar- gaining, discharged Ira C. Potts because of his activities on behalf of the International Union ; and that by the afore-mentioned acts the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act. On May 27, 1938, the Regional Director issued an order dismissing that portion of the amended charge dealing with the alleged dis- criminatory discharge of Jay Crowley.' On June 7, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it alleged that the Board was without jurisdiction, and without waiving its objection because of Want of jurisdiction, ad- mitted certain facts relating to its incorporation, the nature of the business, and the formation of the Continental Union, but in substance denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices. ' On June 10, 1938, the Continental Union filed a motion to inter- vene, in which it claimed an interest in the controversy, requested permission to present evidence, and denied the allegations referring to it contained in the complaint. Ruling on this motion was reserved for the Trial Examiner. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Ponca City, Oklahoma, from June 13 to 21, 1938, before E. R. Strempel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the Oil Workers Union, and the Continental Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. i The Oil Workers Union did not appeal from the Regional Director's ruling as provided for in National Labor Relations Board Rples and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, Article Il, Section 9 CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 63 At the outset of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the Continental Union to intervene in the proceeding, limiting its intervention to the issues pertinent to that portion of the charge dealing with the alleged violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to conform the complaint to the proof in certain respects? On sev- eral occasions, before and during the hearing, counsel for both the respondent and the Continental Union moved to dismiss the entire complaint or portions thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on these motions but denied them in his Intermediate Re- port, except in so far as they related to allegations in the complaint that Ira C. Potts had been discharged for union activities. As to the last-mentioned allegation, the Trial Examiner granted the mo- tion of the respondent. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on motions and on objec- tions to the admission of evidence. We have reviewed the above- mentioned rulings and all the other rulings made by the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of evi- dence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. In addition, the Board denies all mo- tions to dismiss the complaint except in so far as they are granted hereafter in its decision. On September 9, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report on the record, copies of which were duly served on all parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices so found and withdraw recognition from and com- pletely disestablish the Continental Union as a representative of its employees. On September 22, 1938, the respondent and the Con- tinental Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, on May 4, 1939, oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent presented oral argument on its exceptions, and the respondent and the Continental Union submitted briefs in support of their positions. The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs and, save as the ex- ceptions are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit. 2 The motion was limited to changing references to "Oil Workers Union" to read "Oil Workers International Union." 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 3 The respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its main office at Ponca City, Oklahoma, is engaged in the processing of crude oil and in the selling and distributing of products produced therefrom. The respondent maintains and operates refineries at Ponca City, Oklahoma ; Wichita Falls, Texas ; Baltimore, Maryland ; Glenrock, Wyoming; Farmington, New Mexico; Artesia, New Mexico; Denver, Colorado; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Lewiston, Montana. At each of these refineries the respondent engages in the processing of crude oil and the selling and distributing of gasoline. At its Ponca City refinery, with which we are herein concerned, the respondent manufactures and distributes gasoline, lubricating Oils, greases, and other petroleum products. During the 11-month period from July 1, 1937, to May 31, 1938, the respondent processed 4 7,108,014 barrels of crude oil at its Pollca City refinery. Approximately 14.15 per cent of the crude oil re- ceived at Ponca City came from outside the State. During the same period, the respondent produced at its refinery at Ponca City, 5,009,- 831 barrels of gasoline, 500,237 barrels of lubricating and engine oils, and 4,740,295 pounds of grease, 90.10 per cent, 93.31 per cent and 92.61 per cent of which, respectively, were transported out of the State of Oklahoma. Over 44 per cent of the gasoline, 52.59 per cent of the lubricating and engine oils and 90.72 of the greases thus shipped out of the State were shipped to bulk plants owned by the respondent.5 The Ponca City plant employs approximately 700 employees, of whom 40 or 50 are temporary workers. The plant covers some 1,000 acres. 11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 231, is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 6 admitting to membership employees of the respondent employed at the Ponca City refinery. s The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of facts entered into by the Board and the respondent during the hearing 4 The stipulation uses the word "produced" but the content indicates that "processed" was intended. 5 At the oral argument, counsel for the respondent stated, "It (the Continental Oil Com- pany ) Is an integrated company. It produces oil, owns pipe lines, manufactures gasoline and petroleum products and it markets them. It is engaged in business in approximately 38 States of the Union There is no question at all but that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Wagner Act." Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 65 Continental Employees Union-of Ponca City Area is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the re- spondent employed at the Ponca City refinery. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleged that the respondent, on or about April 21, 1937, formed, established, and since that date has assisted and sup- ported the Continental Union. Prior to.April 1937 and the advent of the Continental Union, the employees of the respondent had been organized in the Management-Employe Cooperative Council, here- inafter referred to as the Council. The Council was established in November 1933 and continued in operation after July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act. The actions of the respondent prior to July 5, 1935, of course, could not constitute unfair labor practices under the Act, and we make no finding to that effect. However, man- agement-employee relations before the formation of the Continental Union are set forth in order to assist in the evaluation of the re- spondent's subsequent conduct.' A. Management-Employe Cooperative Council The plan of the Council was devised and promulgated by a group of management and employee representatives meeting under the chair- manship of George D. Olds, Jr., an official of the respondent. 8 This group, consisting of seven elected representatives and seven man- agement-appointed representatives, met for approximately a week and developed the governing rules of the organization. The com- mittee then assumed "the responsibility of putting this plan in opera- tion by authorizing the employe representatives to conduct the first elections." As soon as the new employee representatives were elected, the temporary joint committee ceased to exist. Although several minor changes were thereafter made, until its dissolution the plan retained the essential outlines it had assumed on November 3, 1933, when it had been approved by the joint com- mittee. s The plan provided for equal representation for employees 4 National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272. s Olds took the place of the regular chairman, Walter Miller, Vice President in Charge of Manufacturing. The genesis of the plan is not clear . According to some testimony, the respondent summoned 32 employees to consider the entire idea , after some employees had suggested some such plan . The pamphlet which described the plan states , "Realizing that the method of handling matters of mutual interest to management and` employees of Ponca City refinery might be improved , Mr. Walter Miller, Vice President in Charge of Manufacturing , decided to test the sentiment of the employees relative to the formation of a plan which would provide the employees a more direct voice in such matters. The question was informally discussed on October 6, 1933, with a group of thirty-two employees from the various divisions of the refinery; who wholeheartedly endorsed the idea and undertook,to discuss it with their fellow workers " 4 The lnst ' revisions were made in January 1936. 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and management on the Council, which served as the representative body. The privilege of voting for employee representatives was re- stricted to those who had been employed at the plant at least 60 days prior to the election, and employee representatives had to be chosen from among those who had "served for at least sixty days in that district, must be a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age or over, must have had one year or more of continuous service with the refinery immediately prior to his nomination, and [be a] qualified voter in this refinery." No general meetings were provided for under the plan, and employees had no voice in the conduct of the plan except through their representatives. The outline of the structure of the Council illustrates the role played by the respondent in its functioning, and the absence of participation by the mass of employees. Management bore the cost, and held a decisive veto power over all matters coming before the Council. Decisions of the Council were appealable only to higher officials of the respondent. Similarly, no amendment to the basic structure could occur without "the affirmative vote of at least three fourths of the total membership of the Council." It is evident that during its entire existence the Council was com- pletely dominated and supported by the respondent. 10 As we shall have occasion to point out, the respondent withdrew its support from the Council within a week after the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decisions on the Act. Nevertheless, for a period of almost 2 years after the effective date of the Act, in reliance on its belief that the Act was invalid on constitutional grounds, the respondent had thus interfered with the self-organiza- tion of its employees. B. The Townsend incident Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States had passed upon the constitutionality 'of the Act' on April 12, 1937, some 20 employees met in the council room of the plant. Ralph H. Town- send, who took a leading part in the affair, testified that he did not know that any one person had called this meeting, but that it "just kind of happened." 11 Prior to the meeting Townsend had gone to the office of Van Nest, the respondent's personnel supervisor, to ask him "what we could do about forming a . . . or what we was go- 10Cf. National Labor Relations Board vs Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Greyhound Management Company, 303 U. S 261 n Cf. Titan Metal Manufacturing Company -and Titan Employees Protective Association and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company . Intervenors, v. National Tabor Relations Board, 106 F. ( 2d) 254 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied , 308 U. S. 615, enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Federal Labor Union No. 19981, 5 N. L. R. B. 577, where the Court stated , "The-National Labor Relations Board and this Court are asked to believe that no one present at the meeting can now remember how they happened to be there." CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 67 ing to do about a bargaining agency." While speaking to Van Nest on that occasion the latter called Townsend's attention to an article in a trade magazine which gave Townsend the idea for a petition which he subsequently presented to the meeting. 12 Townsend opened the meeting by informing the other employees present that the decisions on the Act had outlawed the Council, but that it had also "made it compulsory for us to have some kind of a bargaining agency." Following this statement Townsend sent for Van Nest, asking him to come to the meeting and to "bring in that magazine." When Van Nest appeared he said, "We are all liable to get in jail for this, because I don't know what this newly formed National Labor Relations Board is going to say about this meeting." Van Nest also expressed some doubt as to the legality of holding the meeting in the council room. Van Nest or Townsend then read the magazine article to the group. After some discussion, the meeting proceeded to revise and circulate the petition or letter first drafted by Townsend. As revised this petition reads as follows : We the employees of the Continental Oil Company, Ponca City Refinery, believe that our problems can be worked out better, quicker and more satisfactorily the way they have been in the past, than would be possible through any one union, and realizing that the quality of the Product we manufacture, the success of the Continental Oil Company and our own well being all require uninterrupted, operation by contented workmen, secure ' in the knowledge that the benefits of employment by the Continental Oil Company will not be affected by any out- side influence. And do hereby Resolve : To resist to the uttermost any attempt by any organized group to dominate us, or obstruct the free movement and actions, collectively or individually in bargaining with our employers, and to assure the Continental Oil Company that the employees of the Ponca City Refinery will not be influenced by any outside . organization. One employee in the group refused to sign the petition, but the others did so and decided to distribute it among the various de- partments in the plant. Typewritten copies 'were made and placed in the open working desks of the head operators in each department. The petition proved unpopular, being referred to by some employees as the "yellow-dog petition," and was soon withdrawn. It is plain from the foregoing that the Townsend incident repre- sented an attempt to create an organized opposition and resistance among the employees toward outside organizations. It is equally 12 The article described the establishment of the "Security League, " an organization formed by employees of the Humble Oil Company. 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apparent that Van Nest, the respondent's personnel supervisor, par- ticipated in the movement by furnishing a concrete suggestion in the form of the magazine article for the procedure to be followed, and by taking an active part in the one meeting of the group. The respondent contends that it was not responsible for this activity, that the Townsend meeting was the result of a spontaneous movement on the part of some 20 of its employees, that the thoughts there expressed were the individual views of those present, and that it had no knowledge of the meeting. The validity of this conten- tion is dependent upon whether or not Van Nest is a supervisory employee, whose actions are chargeable to the respondent, which question we now consider. In May 1935 Van Nest, then employed as a welder, was asked to "take charge of personnel relations" at the refinery, with the title of Personnel or Employment Supervisor. At the time of his as- sumption of the position, Fellows, the superintendent, instructed Van Nest that he was "to keep the records of the employment offices ... to create a market for labor . .. a labor market, in other words; take the applications and segregate the various transfers and interpret the policies; that . . . [Van Nest] was to instruct in the policies, or in the policies and standard working conditions." His duties include the keeping of employment records, the interviewing of applicants for positions, the selection of eligible applicants, and the making of recommendations for hiring, but he has no power to hire or discharge. Occasionally, on his own initiative, Van Nest recommends salary increases. As is hereinafter discussed in Section C, Van Nest attended the meeting at which the respondent withdrew its support from the Council and left with the management representatives and there- after attended bargaining meetings between the respondent and the Continental Union. In the minutes of the Continental Union he is described as a member of the Management Committee. He is not an hourly paid employee, but is on a salary, receiving from $225 to $300 per month, and occupies an office in the refinery office building. Finally, the record is clear, and we find, that other employees do not regard Van Nest as an.ordinary employee, but consider him a repre- sentative of the management. Moreover, while Van Nest denied that he occupies a supervisory position, it appears from what he has told other employees that he considers himself part of the respond- ent's managerial staff. Townsend, a witness for the respondent, tes- tified that at the meeting referred to previously Van Nest "kind of seemed to think that as an-that is the way I got it at least-that as an official of the Continental Oil Company, he was prohibited from talking to the employes about anything connected with collective bargaining." CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 69 In support of its position that Van Nest does not have any super- visory status,13 the respondent urges that he has no authority to hire or discharge. While it is true that Van Nest does not have that au- thority, only two men at the refinery have such absolute power. Mil- ler testified, and we find, that except in unusual cases department heads and even superintendents and assistant superintendents of the plant do not have final authority to discharge a man ; such a case would be referred to either Miller as vice president of the respond- ent or Osborn, general manager of the plant. Similarly, Fellows testified, and we find, that no one is finally hired until the employ- ment is approved by Osborn. In a refinery of this size the right to hire or discharge is not determinative of the existence of supervisory authority.14 Van Nest's duties, while in part composed of handling routine personnel matters, admittedly include the interpretation of manage- ment policies and the instruction of other employees in such policies. He functions in a liaison capacity between management and men, as the respondent asserts, and by virtue of that unique position must of necessity serve as the direct conduit through which management's policies and wishes are conveyed to the men. We find that the nature and incidents of his employment differentiate his position from that of ordinary employees and identify him with the management, both in fact and in the minds of the employees. We find that Van Nest is a part of the management and that, as such, his acts are binding upon the respondent 15 Is Miller, vice president in charge of the refinery, testified, "Mr Van Nest is not consid- ered by me to be a part definitely of the Management of the organization. He is an assist- ant to the Management in the keeping of the records of employees, in the hiring of new men, and so forth, and in helping to straighten out personnel problems that may arise, but as to having managerial or supervisory authority it does not exist and he is in many respects looked upon moie as a liason (sic) man between the company and the workers than as one of managerial capacity." 11 As we stated in Matter of Al Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. and Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants' Union, Local No. 16, United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0 ; Matter of M. Lowenstein if Sons, Inc. and Textile Workers' Organizing Commit- tee, Local No. 65, C. I. 0 ; Matter of M. Lowenstein if Sons, Inc. and United Wholesale Em ploi;ees of N. Y, 6 N. L. R. B. 216, . . The respondent points out that the sole power to hire and discharge rests with its personnel manager. There can be little doubt, however, that one executive cannot pass on the merits of more than 300 employees without the advice of persons in intermediate positions, who are in close contact with those under them . . . icCf. Matter of Consumers' Research, Inc and J. Robert Rogers, Representative for Technical, Editorial and Office Assistants Union, Local No 20055, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, 2 N. L. R B. 57, 65, where we stated, "A personnel director is, ipso facto, intimately connected with management and in a position to effect employment policy." See, also, Swift if Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 87, 94 (C. C A 10), enf'g as mod Matter of Swift & Conipan0, a corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North .nnerica, Local No 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No .300, 7 N L R B 269, and International Associa- tion of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, Affiliated with the International Association of Machinists, and Production Lodge No 1200, Affiliated with the International Association of Machinists , v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 L R. R. 335 (C. A. D. C.), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L R. B. 621. 28303%-41-voI 22--6 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Continental Union On April 17, 1937, 5 days after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutional validity of the Act Walter Miller, vice president of the respondent, issued a state- ment over his signature asserting that the decisions made necessary certain revisions in the Council Plan as it then existed, but that it would continue to function as in the past. The full text of this statement, which was posted on all bulletin boards in the plant, is as followh. To Empouyees Interested in and Members of the Ponca City Manayement Employe Cooperative Council: I have rieen asked whether our present Council Plan conforms to the National Labor Relations Act (generally known as the Wagner Act). I have made a study of the Act and find some revisions in the Council Plan are necessary, but in my opinion revisions can be made in the existing plan which will bring it completely within the scope of all the requirements of the Act, and enable the con- tinuance of collective bargaining substantially as has been the case in the past few years. On the next day, however, the management changed its position and summoned a meeting of the Council at which Osborn, manager of manufacturing, announced orally that management was withdraw- ing its representatives from any further participation in the Council, and would not further recognize the Council as a bargaining agency.16 After a brief discussion, during which officials of the respondent explained that the decisions on the Act required this action, the management representatives turned the Council over to the employee representatives and withdrew.17 The employee representatives requested Osborn to remain in the building within call, so that they might ask him questions, and he did so. One of the employee repre- sentatives, Herschel Myers, testified and we find that, after Osborn had retired from the meeting, "there were one or two questions asked him" by the representatives. During the meeting, Myers went to "Miller testified that , "when I wrote that I did not have a full realization of all the imports of the Wagner Act . . I felt that the sentiment of the great majority would be to continue the collective bargaining with the Management on a direct basis as they had been doing in the past , but realized more fully later than I did when I wrote that letter that there would have to be drastic changes , much more drastic changes in the Plan than occurred to me at the moment " "Osborn stated at this point that, "It [the Council ] was ours [the employee repre- sentatives ] from there on " Cf Matter of Swift & Company and United Automobile Work- ers of America,' Local No 265 ; Matter of Swift of Company ^ and United Packing House Workers L I Union No 928 affiliate C. 10, 7 N L R B 287 CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 71 Osborn to ask him again if the management would not render some assistance "in drafting something that we might start with," but Osborn refused. For 3 or 4 hours after the management representa- tives had left them, the employee representatives who had attended the last meeting remained in conference. They decided to call a gen- eral meeting for the next day. Notice of this meeting was conveyed to other employees by the conferees. Herschel Myers, Buchanan, and Don Crooks, employee representa- tives present at the April 18 meeting, requested Van Nest, the respond- ent's personnel supervisor, who had withdrawn with management representatives from the Council meeting of the previous day to come to the April 19 meeting at the American Legion Hut. Crooks, Paden, Myers, and Buchanan "assumed the responsibility" of carrying on and decided that, at such a meeting, Buchanan would present a motion for an inside organization. Van Nest opened the April 19 meeting by explaining its purpose and informing the employees of what had happened to the Council. Myers then explained the differences between the "proposed Council" or union, and the old Council. Since this meeting was poorly at- tended, it was decided to call another meeting for Wednesday, April 21. On this occasion, notices were posted on all the plant bulletin boards, and the meeting itself was held in the machine shop of the plant. The use of the machine shop for this purpose was secured by Van Nest,ywho first obtained the permission of Fellows. Care was taken to see that employees would attend this meeting. Fellows testified, and we find, that Van Nest asked him to make it possible to have "some of the mechanical department ... leave work early in order .' .. to attend the meeting".18 The evidence is not clear as to whether all employees who left their work a half-hour before the shift ended on this day were paid for attendance at the meeting but the respondent admits that "three of the several hundred employees who attended the mass meeting ... were through the oversight or neglect of respondent also not docked in wage for the 30 to 50 minutes they spent at the meeting." When the meeting was called to order by Van Nest 19 as chairman, at 3: 30 p. in., on April 21, there were some 250 to 300 employees present. The procedure of the previous meeting was followed; Van Nest explained the reason for meeting and Myers outlined the proposed plan. We find that Van Nest stated : "We will have to do away with our old Council but it is still functioning until we get something else." Is Fellows testified that these men 's ere to be allowed to leave early but were not to be paid for the time spent at the meeting. 19 Van Nest was asked to attend this meeting by Crooks , Buchanan, and Myers. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Buchanan moved that the meeting go on record as favoring the formation of an organization not affiliated with any outside group, and this motion was carried. Buchanan then moved "that the elected representatives of the old Cooperative Council continue in their work in that capacity until the by-laws and procedures of the new Union was set up." Accordingly, the meeting voted to have the representatives of the old Council draft the new constitution and to appoint two men from each district to help them in this work. A motion to elect these additional drafters was ruled out of order by Van Nest. The drafting committee met on April 22, 23, and part of April 24, and spent its entire time during this period in formulating a consti- tution. Though Osborn first informed the committee that it, would not be paid, the respondent admits and we find that each member received his regular salary while working on the committee. On April 24 members of the committee, having finished their task, invited Walter Miller, Sr., and a legal representative of the respond- ent, to meet with them "for their opinion and advice on any questions which the committee may ask them." 20 In response to this request, Miller and Judge Hull came to the council room and read the pro- posed constitution and bylaws. Both stated that, except,for a few minor corrections, it was a well-drawn document.21 They remained for approximately 13/4 hours, answering questions, and then left. Exclusive of this incident and the activities of Van Nest, no member of the management was called before the committee or aided in its deliberations: In accordance with the suggestion from Judge Hull, the representa- tives changed the order of certain sections of the constitution, trans- posing the purposes and procedure sections. At 3: 10 p. m. that afternoon, the representatives adopted the constitution and later adjourned the meeting. Copies of the constitution were then mimeo- graphed and distributed to all employees, together with a covering letter signed by Don Crooks, as committee chairman, and Alberto E. Paden, secretary.22 40 When asked why Hull and Miller had been invited to meet with the group, Buchanan, a witness for the respondent, stated, "to examine . . . the bylaws . . . as to the legality of the construction of it." 21 Although Paden, secretary-treasurer of the Continental Union, testified that he did not know the source or example used in formulating the new bylaws , a comparison of the governing rules of the Council and the Continental Union reveals the fact that the later instrument was, in large part , taken from the first. For example, the sections entitled 5B (1), relating to election procedure , are identical in the two documents, and include a reference to employe representatives. 21 The letter stated that the constitution would "if adopted by a majority of the em- ployees , cover collective bargaining in the future between the employees and the manage- ment. The plan was framed entirely by the employes committee , and no management representatives were present. . . An election will.be held you will have the oppor- tunity to adopt or reject this plan " CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 73 The constitution was mimeographed by the respondent. Some members of the Continental Union thought that the organization had reimbursed the respondent for this expenditure but, although lie was given every opportunity to examine his vouchers and can- celed checks, Paden, secretary-treasurer of the Continental Union, could find no sign of any such payment. We find that the respondent was not reimbursed for the mimeographing. From April 30 to May 3, an election was conducted "I among employees of the plant, offering them an opportunity to vote yes or no upon the question of whether they desired to select the Con- tinental Union as bargaining representative.24 Paden, secretary- treasurer of the Continental Union, testified and we find that the ballots used in the election were mimeographed in the drafting room of the plant by the respondent. On May 7, 1937, the drafting committee met from 9 a. m. to 12 noon. The committee first tabulated the votes and found that 62 per cent of the employees had voted "Yes." It was decided to demand recognition from the respondent, and a letter to the manage- ment stating the results of the election and embodying this request was drafted and forwarded to Miller. The minutes of the meeting reveal that by the time the committee had considered the question of printing membership cards, an answer was received from Miller, "officially accepting [the Continental Union] as the collective bar- gaining agency with its employees . . ." The meeting then voted to ask Miller to post notices on the plant bulletin boards announcing the recognition of the Continental Union. Immediately thereafter, Miller was asked if he would allow pay-roll deductions for Con- tinental Union dues. He replied that he would have to consult the officers of the respondent at their next meeting. On the same day, in response to the request of the Continental Union, the respondent posted notices on each of its bulletin boards announcing its recognition of the Continental Union as bargaining 23 For the most part, voting was done between shifts and after hours, but uncontradicted testimony showed that some voting took place in the office of a foreman and during work- ing hours . In this case, the employee had been requested to vote and another employee sent up to take his place while he cast his ballot. Testimony indicated that one ballot box was so imperfectly sealed as to make it possible to tamper with the ballots , though it was not claimed that this had occurred . See Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Titan Employees Protective Association and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company, Intervenors v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 254 (C C. A. 3), cert denied 308 U S. 615, enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Com- pany and Federal Labor Unwn No. 19981, 5 N. L. R B 577: "The election procedure, like - the plan, shows no sign of the cruder form of unfairness . . . It could hardly be said, however, to meet the full requirements of the mechanism fashioned by the political scien- tists for the effective recording of free choice . The polling place was not on neutral territory." 24 The ballot stated, "I hereby select the Continental Employes Union of Ponca City area as my representative in collective bargaining with the management of Continental Oil Company." 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agent. The announcement continued, "This takes the place of the Management-Employe Cooperative Council which has functioned, since 1933, but which can no longer be kept up because of certain provisions in the Act." The respondent also pledged its cooperation to the new organization and stated that it felt that the objectives of the Council would be continued in the new Continental Union. Subsequently, the respondent entered into an informal arrange- ment with the Continental Union providing for the check-off of union dues where the employee concerned desired such an arrangement. Early in 1938 the Continental Union participated in a series of con- ferences concerning the respondent's seniority rules and the alloca- tion of seniority status to particular employees. The Continental Union has presented many individual grievances to the management but has never sought nor obtained a collective contract with the respondent covering wages, hours, or working conditions. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that since the organization of the Continental Union, the respondent, by and through its super- visory employees, accorded preferential treatment to members of said union, and expressed antipathy toward the Oil Workers Union. In its answer, the respondent denied this allegation of the complaint. Since we have hereinabove set forth the facts concerning the re- spondent's relationship to the Continental Union we pass to a con- sideration of the respondent's conduct towards the Oil Workers Union and some of the instances revealed by the record in which the respondent's supervisors are alleged to have expressed antipathy toward the Oil Workers Union. Dwight J. Bottrell, who had been in the respondent's employ for the last 15 years, testified that in June 1937 he was called to the office of Dodson, division superintendent; that Dodson informed. him that he knew of his attendance at C. I. O. meetings, and that Bottrell could either stop such attendance or leave the respondent's employ; that Dodson then launched into an attack upon the C. I. 0., stating that "The C. I. O. union is a Red, Communist, anything you may want to call it" and that "he [Dodson] would fight as long as he had one red drop of blood in his body to keel, it [the C. I. 0.] out of the Company"; that Dodson warned Bottrell that although the respondent could not discharge him for union activity, there were a thousand other reasons for dismissing an employee. Dodson testified that he had called Bottrell to his office on June 15, 1937, to inform him that he was neglecting his duty and spending too much time at the pump house; that he warned Bottrell to stay close to his job and that was "all the conversation" he had "along that line." Dodson denied that he had ever "in substance" had any such conversation as attributed to him by Bottrell. However, Sut- CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 75 tle, a reclaimer foreman, testified that he had overheard a conver- sation 25 between Bottrell and Dodson, in which Dodson was "giving" Bottrell "Hell" for talking union on the job. Irrespective of the exact date and place of the conversation and while Dodson may have had occasion to reprimand Bottrell as he asserted, we are satisfied and find that he made in substance the statements regarding the Union attributed to him by Bottrell. J. M. Webb, employed for 3 years' in the yard department, testi- fied that he had a conversation in July 1937, with his superior, E. L. Glover, construction engineer; that Glover started the con- versation by stating that he understood Webb was devoting too much of his time to the "Union uptown" ; that he agreed that he was attending union meetings and stated that he would continue to do so until he had investigated union activities and found out what they were; that Glover then said that he did not care what Webb belonged to, but added, "I like you and I want to see you stay here, but be careful"; that at the same time Glover stated that some woman had reported that Webb had been drunk and that he denied this but admitted that he occasionally did take a drink of whiskey and kept beer in his icebox.26 The above testimony was read to Glover when he took the stand. Glover remembered the conversation but testified that he had spoken to Webb about his excessive drinking; that when they had exhausted this topic, Webb asked Glover what he thought of the Union; that Glover replied that he was not interested in the Union, but that. Webb claimed that he, Webb, was and stated "that some years prior to that, that he belonged to the railroad organization, they had gone out on strike and he was still out; they had never bought him a meal or helped him toward a job, . . . and he was through with the Union"; that he told Webb "that was contrary to some of the rumors in the plant; that it was rumored that he was talking Unionism some or talked about the Union"; that a month after this conversation, Webb returned and tried to tell him about a number of men in the Union who were dangerous, but that he refused to listen to such information. We are not persuaded that Webb initiated the discussion of the Union as Glover asserts. Upon Glover's own version of the con- versation, he had independent knowledge of Webb's union activities and during the course of the discussion Webb sought to disclaim such activity and finally assured him of his abandonment of the 25 Suttle had no recollection of the exact conversation between the men and placed it in October 1937 at a different location than that stated by Bottrell. 20 Glover stated at the hearing that he had never heard of Webb's being drunk on the job, and that Webb was not the only employee whom he had talked to about drinking. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, whereupon Glover expressed doubt. All the evidence con- cerning the conversation seems to us more consistent with Webb's version to the effect that Glover warned him in regard to his union activities and at the same time took the occasion to speak to him con- cerning his drinking. We find that Glover in substance made the statements regarding the Union attributed to him by Webb. Webb also testified that, at a seniority conference attended by employees of the plant, Osborn, the plant manager, remarked upon the fact that "the propaganda uptown" had not worried the respond- ent 10 or 15 years back but that it was now getting to be a serious proposition. He then asked the employees whether they thought the respondent or Russia would pay their next Christmas bonus. Osborn did not take the stand to deny this statement, although there was no showing that he was unavailable. Kelley, an employee called as a witness by the respondent, testified that he had attended one meeting at which he saw both Osborn and Webb but that he had heard no such statement.' On cross-examination Kelley stated that he had not attended all the seniority meetings held at that time. Under these circumstances we find that Osborn made the statements described above. Ned King, an employee, testified without contradiction, and we find, that in April 1938 Osborn asked him whether he belonged to the C. I. 0.27 The respondent did not call Osborn to testify. Other employees testified that no one in a managerial position ever discussed union affiliation with them and there is evidence that supervisory employees had been warned not to talk to employees on this subject. However, neither of these considerations alter the fact that in the instances cited above, the respondent's supervisory em- ployees did nevertheless interfere with the rights of the respondent's employees to self organization.28 27 King further testified that no one had ever criticized him for belonging to one union rather than another 2e See Matter of The A. S. Abell Company, a Corporation and International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, 5 N. L. R. B. 644, 650, enf'd as mod. in National Labor Relations Board v The A S. Abell Com- pany, 97 F (2d) 951 (C. C. A. 4), in which the Board stated "The respondent's policy must be judged in this case , if we are to administer the Act properly , not by broad pro- fessions of general principle, but by the specific acts of its supervisors " , Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R. B. 654. 102 F . ( 2d) 383, 390 (C C. A. 7) ; 106 F ( 2d) 454 (C C. A 7) , enf'd in National Labor Relations Board v The Falk Corporation, 308 U. S 453; of Matter of William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publications , Inc, Hearst Consoli- dated Publications, Inc, Hearst Corporation , American Newspapers, Inc and King Features Syndicate, Inc. and American Newspaper Guild, Seattle Chapter, 2 N. L. R. B . 530, enf'd as mod in National Labor Relations Board v. William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publica- tions, Inc, a Corporation, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., a Corporation, Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, American Newspapers, Inc, a Corporation, and King Features, Inc., a Corporation, 102 F. ( 2d) 658 (C C A 9). CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 77 We find that by the activities of the respondent's supervisory em- ployees as hereinabove described the respondent expressed antipathy toward the Oil Workers Union and thereby interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Conclusions regarding the Continental Union From November 1933 to April 1937, including a period of almost 2 years after the effective date of the Act, the respondent maintained the Council, an organization which it completely dominated as an agency for employee representation. Within less than a week after the validation of the Act on April 12, 1937, the respondent through Van Nest participated in a movement to create employee resistance to any outside form of organization. On April 17, 1937, the respond- ent withdrew recognition and its representatives from the Council but, apart from that action, did nothing either to remove the con- tinuing effect of its past domination of the employees' bargaining representative or to accord its employees an opportunity to exercise freely their rights under the Act.29 In fact, on the day before the dissolution of the Council, in Miller's statement to the employees, the respondent expressed an unmistakable desire to retain the Council as the agency for collective dealing with its employees, with such limited modifications as might be necessary to satisfy the require- ments of the Act. When the respondent realized the next day that the Council could not thus be saved, the employee representatives on the Council were informed by the respondent of its dissolution and the reasons therefor but no step was taken to remove the impression among its employees, created by its advocacy of a modified Council plan, that it desired the continuation of the Council in an altered form. Indeed even the employee representatives themselves seemed to be under the impression that the Council still functioned, for Buchanan, an employee representative present at the time the dissolution was announced, testified that he believed "that one of the Management stated that we would continue under the old Cooperative Council until such time as we had a bargaining agency." That the employee representatives were sensitive and amenable to the respondent's wishes is evidenced by the fact that when management representatives with- drew from the April 18 meeting the employees' representatives 29 See National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Com- pany, 308 U S 241, aff'g and mod , 101 F (26) 841, and enf'g Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, 8 N. L. R B. 866. 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD promptly sought to have the plant manager assume the active initia- tive in the formation of a successor organization. Although the latter refused this request, the respondent maintained its participation in the organizational affairs of its employees through Van Nest, personnel supervisor, who acted as chairman of the employee meetings of April 19 and 21, in which former employee representatives tinder the Council plan assumed the leadership.30 In addition to the participation of Van Nest, the respondent furnished tangible support to the formation and growth of the Con- tinental Union.31 Van Nest assisted the employees in securing the ,use of the machine shop on April 21 and permission from Fellows to allow members of the staff to leave work early in order to attend the meeting. A few employees were paid for time during which they did not work. Notices for the April 21 meeting were posted on all bul- letin boards. The respondent extended financial help to the new organ- ization by paying an entire committee, consisting of 27 employees, for more than 2 days' time spent in drafting a constitution and bylaws. Upon the completion of work on the proposed constitution and bylaws, the draft was submitted to the respondent's vice presi- dent and counsel for inspection and approval before submission to the employees. Copies of the proposed constitution and bylaws and ballots for an election were mimeographed at the respondent's ex- pense. An election, in which the employees' choice was limited to a "Yes" or "No" vote on the Continental Union, was conducted on com- pany property in a manner which did not insure its secrecy or freedom. from employer interference.32 When, under the circumstances heretofore set forth, the major- ity of the employees had voted to accept the Continental Union, providing for an organization substantially similar in structure to the abandoned Council Plan, except for the absence of management rep- resentatives, the respondent accorded it the valuable privilege of recognition as a collective bargaining agency, within a few hours after a formal request therefor by the organization. On that same day it further announced on its bulletin boards that the Continental Union would be the representative of the employees in the plant. 30Cf Matter of Swift C Company, a corporation , and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No 61,1, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No 300, 7 N L R B 269 , enf'd as mod Swift cC Company v National Labor Relations Board, 106 F ( 2d) 87 , 94 (C C A 10), as to the role taken by former repre- sentatives under an admittedly dominated organization in the formation of a new organization 31Cf. Matter of Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America , 12 N L. R. B 886 82 Cf. Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Titan Employees Protective Association and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company, Intervenors v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 254 (C C A 3), cent denied , 308 U S 015, enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Federal Labor Union No. 19981. 5 N L. R B. 577. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 79 Thereafter the respondent insured the financial stability of the or- ganization by granting it a limited check-off privilege. The re- spondent's affirmative support of the Continental Union stands in marked contrast to the antipathy to the Oil Workers Union expressed by certain of its supervisory employees. The respondent contends that its withdrawal of recognition from the Council dispelled any coercive effect its past conduct may have had on its employees; that thereafter it did not dominate the forma- tion of the Continental Union; that Van Nest appeared at the meet- ings of April 19 and 21 "at the request of fellow employees and for the sole and only purpose of discussing the Wagner Act;" that no official of the respondent interfered with the drafting of the con- stitution and bylaws of the Continenal Union; that the Continental Union was established by a very substantial majority of the em- ployees in a fair election uninfluenced in any manner by any action or conduct of the respondent; 33 that the organization has truly rep- resented employees, both in collective and individual bargaining; 34 and that the organization is functioning within the letter and spirit of the Act. We are not persuaded by any of these contentions, and in view of our findings heretofore set forth we do not deem it neces- sary to discuss them further. We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Continental Union and has contributed financial and other support to it and has thereby in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Ira C. Potts The complaint alleged that the respondent had discharged Ira C. Potts because of his organizational activities on behalf of the Oil Workers Union. The Trial Examiner found that Potts had been discharged for adequate and legitimate business reasons and not because he had joined or taken part in activities on behalf of the Oil Workers Union. The Oil Workers Union filed no exceptions to these findings. We have considered the evidence and agree with the Trial Examiner's findings. We find that the respondent did not discriminate in re- as See National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Company, 108 F. (2d) 867 C. C. A. 5), enf'g Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , affiltiated with the American Federation of Labor; Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R B. 60 8E National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, 308 U S. 241, aff'g and mod, 101 F. (2d) 841, 1939, and enf'g Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, 8 N. L. R. B. 866. SO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bard to the hire and tenure of employment of Potts within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The allegations of the com- plaint with regard to his discharge will, therefore, be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III (a) above, occurring in connection with its operations described 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Continental Employees Union of Ponca City area and has contributed financial and other support to it. The organization was not freely chosen and cannot, in view of the circumstances, function as an independent representa- tive of the respondent's employees. We shall therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, order the respondent to withdraw recognition from the Continental Union and to disestablish it as representative of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work.35 The record reveals that the respondent and the Continental IJhion have entered into an informal arrangement permitting the check-off of dues at the request of an employee member of that group. Since we have found that the check-off constituted additional support, to the company-dominated Continental Union and served to perpetuate., its existence by affording it a measure of financial stability we will order the respondent to cease and desist from giving any effect to any such arrangement." For reasons which we have stated in previous decisions, and to restore the status quo, the respondent will be required to reimburse its employees for the amounts which have been checked off as Continental Union dues.37 36 See National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Com- pany, 308 U S. 241, and National Labor Relations Board v Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272. -' Matter of Centre Brass Works, Inc., and Enterprise Novelty Co. and Metal Polishers, Platers, Buffers and Helpers International Union, Local No. 8, 10 N. L. R. B. 1060; Matter of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 50, 13 N. L. R. B. 993. 37 See Matter of The Heller Brothers Company of Neweomerstown and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L. R. B. 646. See also Matter of Western Garment Manufacturing Co, A. B. Malouf, as Liquidating Agent of Western Garment Manufacturing Co, and A. B. Malouf, IV. B. Malouf, Frances B. Malouf, Edward I. Malouf, and Bert B. Malouf, trading as Malouf Brothers Manufacturing Co. and Paul M. Peterson, President, Utah State Federation of Labor, 10 N. L. R. B. 567. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 81 In addition, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 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, Local No. 231, and Continen- tal Employes Union of Ponca City Area, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad- ministration of Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area and by contributing financial and other support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent 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 affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent 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 -, respond'ent, `Continental Oil Company, a corporation, Ponca City, =Oklahoma,: and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : - (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Con- tinental Employes Union of Ponca City Area, or with the forma- tion or administration of any other labor organization of its em- ployees, and from contributing financial and other support to the Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Giving effect to any check-off or other arrangements or agree- ments which it has made with the Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the Con- tinental Employes Union of Ponca City Area as such representative; (b) Reimburse the employees who were members of the Con- i inental Employes Union of Ponca City Area for the dues which have been deducted from said employees' wages on behalf of said Continental Union ; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department of its plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a), (b),. and (c) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) 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 therewith. AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.