Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 34 (1962)

calculated to convey the impression that the employees may receive a benefit in the form of more favorable terms of employment if they vote for one union rather than another. Assuming that the Employer's letter was provoked, as stated therein, by a rumor that the Employer would not sign a contract with the Petitioner, even though it won the election, the Employer needed only to deny this rumor. It was not justified in indicating that the Petitioner might receive better treatment than the Intervenor.

On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude, as did the Acting Regional Director, that the Employer's statement interfered with the employees' exercise of a free choice in the election.

We shall therefore set the election aside and shall direct the Acting Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on June 26, 1953 , be, and it hereby is, set aside.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Acting Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.

QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION , LOCAL 481, G.I.O.

Case No. 6-CA - 626. November 12, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER

On August 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, but recommending that no remedial order issue. A copy of the Intermediate Report is attached hereto. Thereafter exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the Respondent and exceptions with a supporting brief were filed by the General Counsel.

The Respondent was granted leave to, and did , file a brief in reply to the General Counsel's brief.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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 General Counsel, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings , conclusions , and recommendations except as follows:

107 NLRB No. 11.

The Trial Examiner found that there had been a violation of the statute, but, in view of the circumstances of this case, recommended that no remedial order be issued by the Board.

As found by the Trial Examiner and as shown by the record, the Respondent bargained in good faith to an impasse, certain increases were made during the interim before bargaining was resumed , the Respondent displayed no antiunion animus, the parties overcame the impasse and reached agreement, and, finally, the conduct of the Respondent did not disrupt harmonious relations between the parties . Even assuming, without deciding, that there was a technical violation, in these circumstances we would not find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint.

[The Board dismissed the complaint.] Intermediate Report Upon a charge filed by Oil Workers International Union, Local 481, C.LO., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued his complaint dated March 31, 1953, against Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, 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 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that the Respondent, on or about May 24, 1952, at a time when it was engaged in negotiating a collective-bargaining contract covering the employees at its Emlenton, Pennsylvania, plant with the Union as the representative of these employees, unilaterally granted, without notifying or consulting the Union, wage increases to certain employees in the bargaining unit, and has since failed and refused to bargain with the Union concerning these wage increases although requested by the Union to do so By this conduct, the Respondent allegedly breached its statutory duty to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.

In its answer duly filed, the Respondent admitted that it had granted the aforesaid wage increases, but denied having thereby violated the Act in justification of its conduct the Respondent averred that the increases were granted during a period of 'impasse' in contract negotiations with the Union, that no bargaining contract was then in existence to preclude such action , and that the wage increases in question were incorporated in the contract later reached by the Respondent and the Union Subsequent to the filing of the answer, the Respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars as to allegations in the complaint This motion was denied by Dent B. Dalby, Trial Examiner, to whom the motion was referred for ruling Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Franklin, Pennsylvania, on May 25 and 26, 1953, before Thomas N. Kessel, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by an official thereof Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and crossexamine witnesses, and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties At the close of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent made oral statements, and thereafter filed briefs with the undersigned which have been carefully considered Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following;

FINDINGS OF FACT

L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT

The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Respondent, a Delaware corporation having its principal office in Oil City, Pennsylvania, produces , refines, and distributes petroleum and its byproducts in West Virginia, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. The parties stipulated at the hearing that in 1952 the Respondent purchased materials , supplies, and equipment for use at its Emlenton. Pennsylvania, plant valued in excess of $1,000,000 of which 25 percent was shipped to this plant from points outside the State. During the same period the Respondent sold products produced at the Emlenton plant valued in excess of $ 1,000,000 of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State.

From the foregoing , it is found that the Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.

IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED

Oil Workers International Union, Local 481, C.LO., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent III, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The alleged refusal to bargain It is established that at all times material the Union represented a majority of the Respondent' s employees in an appropriate unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees with certain exclusions at the Respondent's Emlenton, Pennsylvania, plant.

On December 21, 1951, representatives of the Union and the Respondent met at the Respondent's Emlenton plant to negotiate a new contract to supersede their subsisting contract which was due to expire on February 7, 1952. At this first meeting the Union presented its proposals which included a 25-cent per hour across -the-board wage increase for employees in all...