Columbian Carbon Company And Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 463, 1010 (1943)

In the Matter of COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 463 Case No. ('-406.-Decided February 25, 1943 Jurisdiction: carbon black, carbon, and carbon products producing industry.

Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: increase in severity of discipline upon appearance of union, intended to iniduce employees to abandon support of union;

anti-union statements of foremen.

Discrimination: discharge of prominent union member soon after he became active in union.

Remedial Orders: cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and back pay ordered; posting of notices in eight plants under central management ordered when unfair labor practices at two of the plants tended to interfere with employees' union activity throughout all plants.

Mr. Robert F. Proctor, for the Board.

Morgan, Culton, Morgan &~ Britain, by B. M. Britain and D. H. Culton, of Amarillo, Tex., for the respondent.

Mr. C. Massingale, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Oil Workers.

Miss Mary E. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 463, herein called the Oil Workers, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated September 16, 1942, against Columbian Carbon Company,

Pampa, Texas, herein called the respondent, alleging that- the'respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of the hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Oil Workers.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in,substance (1) that the respondent on or about. October 26, 1941, dis47 N. L. Rt. B., No. 127.

1010 1011,charged R. T. Glosson and has since that date failed and refused to,employ him because he joined or assisted the Oil Workers or engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection; and (2) that thereby, and by certain other specified acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On September 25, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, admitting certain facts as to its corporate organization and the character of its business, and conceding that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The respondent, however, denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.,Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Amarillo, Texas, on September 28 and 29, 1942, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Oil Workers was represented by a union official. All parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The respondent rested at the close of the Board's presentation and did not call witnesses to the stand. Its participation in the hearing was limited to cross-examination of the Board's witnesses. At the opening of the hearing the Board moved to strike from the respondent's answer certain allegations setting forth its contractual relations with the Oil Workers.1 This motion was denied.

During the hearing, the Board moved to substitute the name of R. W.

Koonce for that of O. E. Keplinger named in the Board's complaint.

This motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to the spelling of names, dates, and minor errors. This motion was granted without objection. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated November 6, 1942, copies of which were duly served on both the parties. He found that the respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

He recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom; that it offer reinstatement to, and make whole, R. T. Glosson; and that it take certain other affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.

On November 23, 1942, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. The ' See Section III A, below.

Board has considered the exceptions and brief, and insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.

Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Columbian Carbon Company, was incorporated prior to 1925 in the State of Delaware. It is engaged in the production of carbon black, carbon, and carbon products. Its principal office is located in New York City and it has plants in various States of the United States. Eight of these plants are located in the Panhandle area of Texas. A central office for their supervision is located at Pampa, Texas. These plants produce carbon black by burning the natural gas derived from wells in that area.

During the years 1940 and 1941, which were normal years of operation, the respondent's eight plants in the Panhadle area produced approximately 135,000,000 pounds of carbon black annually. More than 95 percent of this output was shipped by interstate common carriers to points outside the State of Texas. The respondent admits that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.

In its 8 Panhadle plants the respondent normally employs between 155 and 160 production, maintenance, and construction employees.

In addition it has about 25 office, sales, and supervisory employees.

At its Wescar plant it employed at the time of the hearing about 56 production, maintenance, and construction employees, and about 8 office, sales, and supervisory employees.2 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union and its Local No. 463 are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent.

3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In the spring of 1937 a petition was circulated among the employees of the Wescar plant addressed to Dan Glaxner who, both then and at the time of this proceeding, was general superintendent of the respondent's eight Panhandle plants. This petition requested that the hours of labor be rearranged to provide for five 8-hour days and that the 2These findings are based on a stipulation of the parties which was incorporated in the record, and on allegations in the complaint admitted by the respondent in its answer.

   1013 respondent grant a 10-day vacation with pay. One paragraph in the petition read:

   'We are not motivated in these requests by any union activities or the like, but only through a spirit of well being and fair play.3 After consideration of these requests Glaxner called a meeting on April 28, 1937. He stated that the Company would accede to the proposed hourly and daily schedule and that, while they would not grant the 10-day vacation with pay, the Company would give a wage increase of 5 cents per hour in lieu thereof. Uncontradicted testimony by Yates as to the content of Glaxner's speech is recorded as follows: 'He said that he was glad the employees had not organized into a union because he thought we could get together under similar instances as this and work out our difficulties without organized labor, and that he preferred to work it out that way rather than with an organized labor union and have confusion. He just believed we could work it out better by bringing our complaints to him.' Although there had been no attempt to organize the employees of the respondent's Wescar plant at this time, an organizing campaign was under way at a nearby plant operated by another company.

   The evidence shows that after 1937 there was no union activity in any of the respondent's Panhandle plants until October 1941. At that time the Oil Workers began an organizational campaign in the Wescar plant. After that plant was 'pretty well organized' the campaign was extended to the seven other plants. By March 1942, as J. W. Poe, secretary of Local No. 463, testified, it had 'between three and four hundred' members. This local admits employees at the respondent's eight Panhandle plants to membership.

   On January 5, 1942, the Board held a hearing on a petition filed with it by the Oil Workers for investigation and certification of representatives for the employees at the respondent's Panhandle plants.

   The Board rendered its decision on February 10, 1942, directing that an election be held.4 The Oil Workers won the election and on March 18, 1942, the Board certified this union as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees in its eight Panhandle plants for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.' As appears in the respondent's answer, negotiations were subsequently entered into between it and the Oil Workers which resulted in a dontract dated March a W. D. Yates, an employee with about 14 years' service, testified that this paragraph was included because the employees 'thought by putting it in there they made a favorable impression with Mr. Glaxner.' SSee Matter of Columbian Carbon Company and Oil Workers International Union, Local Nos. 463 and 285,

   S 25, 1942, effective as of March 1, 1942. The...