Extract
The Pure Oil Co., 539 (1947)
In the Matter of THE PURE OIL COMPANY ( HEATH REFINERY) and OIL WORKERS I` TERNATrION AL UNION (C. I. 0.) Case No. 8--C-1750.-Decided December 16, 1947
Mr. Richard C. Swander, for the Board.Messrs. Ben A. Harper and Allen C. Hutcheson, Jr., for the respondent.Mr. Lindsay P. Walden, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. William V.Flower, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union.DECISIONANDORDEROn November 25, 1946, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Oral argument, originally granted, was subsequently cancelled, at which time the parties were notified of a further opportunity to file a supplemental brief or written argument setting forth the matters which would have been covered in the oral argument. The respondent filed a written brief in lieu of oral argument.The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs of the respondent, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the respondent's exceptions.1. (a) The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act in that Superintendent McPherson, in a conference with representatives of the CIO and the Independent sometime in 1943, orally promulgated a rule prohibiting electioneering on behalf of unions on company property. At the hearing there was a conflict in the testimony as to what McPherson said at the conference. Mc75 ^T. L. R B., No: 64.539Pherson and the two Independent representatives at the conference testified that the rule, as announced by McPherson, was restricted to working time of employees. John Hickman, a CIO representative who was present, testified that McPherson stated that there was to be no electioneering on company property. Lionel Gartside, the other CIO representative who attended the conference, did not testify.As we have repeatedly held, a rule prohibiting union solicitation on company property violates the Act insofar as it applies to employees' non-working time. However, because of the following considerations, we are of the opinion that the evidence in this proceeding does not support the Trial Examiner's finding as to, the scope of the rule. Although employees engaged in union solicitation in the plant during non-working time with the knowledge of the respondent, the evidence does not establish that the rule was ever enforced to ban such activity. While Hickman testified positively as to the scope of the rule, we are of the opinion, and find, in view of the qualifying testimony of the other participants in the conference, that Hickman must have misunderstood the import of what McPherson said. Accordingly, we are of the opinion, and find, that the evidence does not establish that the rule prohibited solicitation during the employees' nonworking time.(b) The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act in that Assistant Soperintendent Cooper told employee Wilson Bradford, in reply to Bradford's inquiry as to whether his work was satisfactory, that Cooper understood that Bradford was engaged in inviting employees to union meetings and that management would not permit union activities in the plant. The Trial Examiner regarded Cooper's statement to Bradford as unlawful because, in the Trial Examiner's view, Cooper indiscriminately proscribed Bradford's union activities during non-working as well as working time. We do not agree. Bradford was speaking to Cooper about his work, and this discussion occurred during working time.Bradford had engaged in union activity during working time. In view of these circumstances, and the further fact that the record does not disclose any instance of disciplinary action arising from solicitation during non-working time, we are of the opinion that the record does not warrant the inference that Cooper had reference to Bradford's non-working time.(c) The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act in that R. B. Ewing, an assistant foreman, asked employee D. J. McCullough whether employee Lionel Gartside, who was wearing a union button and who had been talking to McCullough during working hours, talked about the Union in their discussion.The Trial Examiner concluded that such conduct was unlawful because, in his view, Ewing sought to enforce the respondent's nonsolicitation rule in a discriminatory fashion against only one of two rival unions in the plant. We do not agree that Ewing acted discriminatorily becaus...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
