International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1191 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1191
interests are otherwise so clearly distinguishable from those of other
employees in the plant to warrant the establishment of an appropriate
unit limited either to shipping department and receiving employees
or to the shipping department alone. Such a finding would require
the Board to accord controlling weight to the Petitioner's extent of
organization among the employees at the Employer's plant. How-
ever, Section 9 (c) (5) of the amended Act forbids this result. Ac-
,cordingly, we find that a unit of shipping department and receiving
employees is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2
The Petitioner, however, has expressed a willingness to represent
any unit which the Board finds appropriate. Although its showing
of interest is insufficient to warrant the direction of an election in a
unit larger than requested, we find, in accordance with established
Board policy, that the two truck drivers, who are engaged solely in
transportation duties, constitute an identifiable, homogenous group
entitled to separate representation 3
We find that all truck drivers employed at the Employer's Flush-
ing, New York, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervi-
sors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no pa t-t in the con-
,sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
2 See Arnold Hoffman S Co , Incorporated, 91 NLRB 1371
' Q-F Wholesalers , Inc., 85 NLRB 582, and cases cited therein
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, SUBORDINATE LomG1,: No. 92; UNITLD
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
A. F. L., LOCAL No. 460; KERN, INYO, AND MONO COUNTIES OF CALI-
FORNIA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, A. F. L., AND
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SANTA BARBARA
'COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A. F. L. and RICIIFIELD OIL CORPORATION.
Case No. 21-CC-92. August 21, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
95 NI{RB No. 160.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged iD,
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as-
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, exceptions and briefs were filed by the General Counsel,.
the Respondents, and Richfield, the charging party.
The requests for oral argument, made by the Respondents, Richfield,
and the General Counsel, are hereby denied, as the record, including the-
exceptions and briefs, in our opinion adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties..
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, ^ conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with
this Decision and Order. -
`l.. In recommending complete dismissal of the complaint, the Trial
Examiner found that the Respondents' picketing at work projects of
the primary employer (Superior) located on the premises of a see-
ondary employer (Richfield) measured up to the standards estab-
lished by the Board in Moore Dry Dock Company.' We cannot agree.
In that decision the Board stated that when a secondary employer is,
harboring a sites of a dispute between a union and a primary em-
ployer, the right of neither the union to picket nor the secondary em-
ployer to be free of picketing can be absolute. The Board there estab-
lished four tests for determining the propriety of such picketing, and
in, applying those tests to the facts in that case determined that the
picketing was primary action and therefore permissive.
Here we need consider only one of the Moore Dry Dock tests.8 Did
the picketing at the secondary employer's premises disclose clearly
I The Trial Examiner , in footnote 4 'of his Intermediate Report , states that upon
objection by counsel for the Respondents , Richfield's attorney "was not permitted to
actively and vocally participate" In the hearing. Under Section 203.38 of the Board's
Rules, Richfield, as the charging party, is clearly a party to the proceeding , and under
Section 203 .38 of the Rules was entitled to participate fully in the proceeding . Accord-
ingly. the Trial Examiner 's action in this regard was erroneous , as Richfield and the
General Counsel both contend.
In these circumstances the Board would normally remand the proceedings to the Trial
Examiner to afford the charging party an opportunity for full participation . However,
we shall not do so in this instance , in view of our disposition of the case , and as Richfield
has not requested that the Board take such action.
0 92 NLRB 547.
• Consistent with their dissent in the Moore Dry Dock decision , Members Reynolds and
Murdock would find the picketing here involved unlawful . Although not agreeing with
the tests laid down by the majority in Moore Dry Dock under which picketing of a
secondary employer 's premises may be deemed lawful , Members Reynolds and Murdock
recognize that they are now bound by the Moore Dry Dock decision to recognize such
principles as the proper test for determining whether picketing of a secondary employer's
premises is lawful . Accordingly , they agree with their colleagues that the Respondents
in this case did not meet one of the essentials laid down , in Moore Dry Dock to immunize
their picketing of Richfield 's premises. , . -
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1193
that the Union's dispute was not with that employer, but only with
another employer who was engaged in a work-project there? We can-
not find that it did. Thus, Ray Conley, who was in charge of the pick-
eting for the Respondents, admitted at the hearing that when two
loads of pipe for Richfield arrived at a Richfield gate in trucks of the
Rush Swoape Trucking. Company, he told a Swoape supervisor, in the
.presence of the Swoape truck drivers, that they could pass the picket
line with their. present loads only because they were in transit before
the picket line was established. As there was no evidence that the pipe
was to be used by Superior, this statement clearly reveals that an
object of the Respondents was to disrupt the business of Richfield, for
the statement carried the unmistakable implication that future loads
for Richfield could not properly pass the picket lines.
Moreover, although- the Respondents' pickets at the Richfield gates
carried signs stating only that Superior was unfair, it is apparent from
the entire record that the picketing was also designed to carry far
beyond Superior alone. Indeed, when the pickets were asked by em-
ployees of third parties having business with Rich field whether they
.might cross the picket line, the pickets replied, "You are 21 years of
age. Use your own judgment." The record demonstrates that the
pickets' evasive replies, suggestive of a negative response, thereby
caused considerable disruption to Richfield's business with such third
parties.
This is not the deliberate attempt to confine the force of the picket-
ing to the primary employer found by the Board in the Moore Dry
Dock case. There the picketing union, before it established its picket
line, asked permission of the secondary employer to place the line
inside the premises right at the sites of the dispute, so that there would
be no disruption to business between secondary employers. Here no,
such request was made to Richfield. Further, in that case it was ad-
mitted' that no attempt was made to interfere with other work in
progress on the secondary premises. That was not the case here'
In these circumstances, we conclude that the Respondents' picketing
of.Richfield premises, unlike the picketing in the Moore Dry Dock.
case, was secondary and not primary.
In the instant case the record reveals that, shortly before the picket
lines were established, one of the Respondents wrote to Richfield
requesting that it "avoid complications" with Superior. When Rich-
field did nothing to comply with this request all of the Respondents
authorized the, establishment of picket lines at Richfield Premises.
4 The two cases have an additional factual distinction which, though not controlling,.
is significant. In Moore Dry Dock the primary employer had no regular place of business
that could be picketed by the union. Here Superior maintained two regular places of
business that could be, and in fact were being, picketed by the Respondents.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we are convinced and find that the picketing was de-
signed, at least in part, to force Richfield to cease doing business with
Superior by inducing third parties to refuse to enter, Richfield's
premises. Thus, the picketing had a proscribed objective and was
violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
2. We further disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondents have not violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act. The
record reveals, as the Trial Examiner has found, that the Respondent
Boilermakers, at all relevant times, was attempting to secure recogni-
tion from Superior, although the Boilermakers had not been certified
by the Board as the bargaining representative for Superior's em-
ployees. As Superior's failure to grant such recognition was the cause
of the dispute here involved, it is clear that an object of the picketing
.of Richfield was to force Superior to recognize the Boilermakers. It
`therefore follows that the picketing of Richfield, a secondary em-
ployer, was also violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act.5
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents
have.-not violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, as the record
contains no persuasive evidence, that the Respondents restrained or
coerced any employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss. that allegation
of the complaint.
Order
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
'Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers
of America, Subordinate Lodge No. 92; United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, A. F. L., Local No. 4601 Kern,
Inyo, and Mono Counties of California Building and Construction
Trades Council, A. F. L.; and Building and Construction Trades,
Council of Santa Barbara County, California, A. F. L., and their
officers, representatives, and agents shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees
of Richfield Oil Corporation or any other employer (other than Su-
perior Tank and Construction Company) to engage in a strike or a
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, mann-
facture,'process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, or commodities, or to perform any services for their respective
employers, where an object thereof is (1) to force or require Richfield
See Howland Dry Goods Company, 85 NLRB 1037 . Enforced in this respect , 191 F.'2d
65 (C. A. 2).
INTERNATIONAL .BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1195
Oil Corporation or any other employer or person to cease doing busi-
ness with Superior Tank and Construction Company, or (2) to force
or require Superior Tank and Construction Company to recognize and
bargain with International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship-
builders and Helpers of America, Subordinate Lodge No-92,. as the
collective bargaining representative of its employees unless and until
such labor organization has been certified as such representative in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in each of their business offices copies of the notice at-
tached hereto as Appendix A.6 Copies of the said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,.
after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted by them im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of sixty-.
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where' notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the said Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the..date of this Order, what.steps.
the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER.ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8:
(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
Appendix A
NOTICE
'aPdisuant fora Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employee of RICH-
FIELD OIL CORPORATION, or of any other employer (other than
Superior Tank and Construction Company), to engage in a strike-
or.concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use,.
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform services. for
their respective employers, where an object thereof is (1) to force,
or require RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION or any other employer or,
person to cease doing business with Superior Tank and Construe
° In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order " the words
"Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion Company, or (2) to force or require Superior Tank and Con-
struction Company to recognize or bargain with International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of
America, Subordinate Lodge No. 92, as the representative of its
employees unless and until certified as such representative in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor
Relations Act. .
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON
SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, SUBORDINATE
LODGE No. 92
By -------------------------------------- -----------
(Representative) (Title)
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES
OF THE PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, A. F. L., LOCAL No. 460
By -------------------------------------- ----------
(Representative) (Title)
KERN, INYO AND MONO COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA BUILD--
.
ING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, A. F. L.
By -------------------------------------- ------------
(Representative) (Title)
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A. F. L.
By --------------------------------------
(Representative ( Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered.by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on February 24, 1950, by Richfield Oil Corporation,
herein called Richfield, the General Counsel' of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles,
,California), issued his complaint dated May 12, 1950, against the persons named
in the caption, herein called the Respondents, alleging that the Respondent's had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) (A), and (4) (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7)'bf the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended June 23, 1947 (61 Stat. 136; et !seq.),
herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance,
as follows: (1) That International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship-
builders and Helpers of America, Subordinate Lodge No. 92, herein called Boiler-
makers ; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, A. F. L., Local No. 460,
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred toas'(3eneral
Counsel ; and the National Labor Relations Board , as the Board.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS '1197
herein called Pipefitters ; Kern, Inyo, and Mono Counties of California. Building
'and Construction Trades Council, A. F. L., .herein called Bakersfield. Council;
and Building and Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County, Cali-
fornia, A. F. L., herein called Santa Barbara Council, and each of them, by
.their ,officers, agents, organizers, and representatives, or any of them, from, on
or about February 24, 1950,. to and including March 3, 1950, acting in concert,
by orders, directions, 'instructions, appeals, threats, and by. picketing induced
and encouraged employees of various employers doing business with Richfield
to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to perform services for their employer; (2) that by said conduct the said Re-
spondents and their agents sought (a) to force or require Richfield to cease
doing business with Superior Tank and Construction Company, herein called
:Superior,' (b) to force or require Superior to recognize or bargain with Respond-
ent Santa Barbara Council as a collective bargaining representative of Superior's
employees, notwithstanding that neither Santa Barbara Council nor its con-
stituent members, Boilermakers and Pipefitters, had been certified as the repre-
sentative of said employees under the provision of Section 8 of the Act; and
^(3) by the aforesaid acts, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) (A),
and (4) (B) of the Act as amended.
Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon all Respondents and upon Richfield.
On or about May 25, 1950, Respondent Bakersfield Council and its constituent
unions, and on or about June 1, 1950; -Respondent Santa Barbara County Coun-
cil filed answers to the complaint wherein they denied all allegations of the
complaint. alleging the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held on June 12, 13, 14, 15, and- 16i
1950, at Bakersfield, California, and on June 26, 27, and 28, 1950, at Santa Bar-
bara, California, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondents were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be beard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the' issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing, Respondents' counsel made certain motions to strike the
testimony of certain witnesses, which testimony was received subject to such
motions ; and motions to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. Such
motions were made during the presentation, and at the conclusion, of the
General Counsel's case-in-chief. The undersigned denied the motions subject
to their renewal at the, close of the hearing. The motions were all renewed at
the close of the hearing, at which time the undersigned reserved ruling for
his Intermediate Report ; and now rules that, except insofar as the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations set forth and determined below failed to dis-
pose of such motions, said motions are hereby denied.
At the close of the hearing the parties were afforded an opportunity, to argue
orally before the undersigned. The General Counsel and counsel for all Respond-
ents delivered arguments which were included in the transcript of proceedings
herein. The parties were advised that they might file briefs and/or proposed
2 When used in this Report Bakersfield Council includes both the Boilermakers and
the Pipefitters.
$ On or about January 5, 1950, Richfield awarded a contract to Superior for the
fabrication and installation of certain steel products at the Cuyama Oil Field, Santa
Barl;ara County, California , where Richfield is engaged in exploring, drilling , and producing
crude oil and natural gas. Consideration for said contract was $50,183.
1 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
findings and conclusions of law with the undersigned. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and by the counsel for the Santa Barbara Council. A further
brief was filed amicus curiae on behalf of Richfield, by David Guntert, Esq.`
The undersigned has duly considered all briefs presented.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,.
the underijgned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE ; THE BUSINESS OF RICHFIELD
Richfield Oil Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place,
of business in Los Angeles, California. It is engaged in the exploration drilling
for, refining and distribution of natural gas, petroleum, and.related products..
Richfield's marketing operations are carried on in the States of Oregon, Wash-
ington;-Idaho, California, Nevada, and Arizona. In each of the seaboard 'States,.
consisting of California, Oregon, and Washington, Richfield maintains marine ter-
minals to which refined products are shipped from its Watson Refinery, Watson,.
California, by tanker. During the year 1949, Richfield. produced and sold natural
gas and petroleum products valued at approximately $122,154,000, substantial
portions of which were sold, shipped, and transported from the State of Cali-
fornia to the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. During
the 12-month period preceding June 15, 1950, Richfield purchased pipeline casing:
of a minimum dollar value of $1,000,000.` Counsel for the Respondents in their
answers denied that Richfield was engaged in commerce under the Act. The
Board has, however, heretofore taken jurisdiction over Richfield. See._Richfleld
Corporation, 49 NLRB 593, affd. 143 F. 2d 860 (C. A. 9).' The undersigned.
4 Upon objection by counsel for Respondents, Mr. Guntert was not permitted to actively-
and vocally participate in the proceedings before the undersigned . He was, however,.
permitted to, and did at all times during the hearing, sit with and counsel with the
General Counsel ; and at the suggestion of the undersigned , Mr. Guntert appeared amicu8 in,
the briefing and argument had in connection - with certain motions to quash two certain.
subpoenas duces tccum issued on behalf of the General Counsel.
Since it was obvious that Mr. Guntert 's proposed participation in the proceedings'
would have been in the role of a prosecutor, and since it did not appear that he had beene
designated as such by the General Counsel of the Board , nor did the latter's representative-
at the hearing request Dir. Guntert's recognition as cocounsel-in the proceedings herein,
,the undersigned concluded that Mr . Guntert's active participation under all the circum-
stances -would be an invasion of the ' province and` the prerogatives of the 'General Counsel'
of-the Board under Section 3 (d) of. the Act and the undersigned felt constrained to
rule as above stated. (See Moore Dry Dock Company (Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL),.
92 NLRB 547 , note 1, and cases therein cited.)
. 5 These findings as to dollar value of pipeline casing • are based upon the credited'
testimony of David Guntert, employed by Richfield for upwards of 19 years as an
attorney , 12 years of which he acted as counsel for different departments of the Richfield'
Corporation , incuding the purchasing department.
6 At or toward the end of his case-in-chief , the General' Counsel by the testimony of
Colin Timmons, president of Superior Tank and Construction Company, sought to prove
that said Company was engaged in interstate commerce as defined by the Act ; and at
the close of the General Counsel 's case-in -chief, he moved to amend the complaint to allege
that Superior Tank and Construction Company was engaged in commerce . The under-
signed received the testimony of Timmons . over the objections of counsel for the-
Respondents, and granted the motion of General Counsel to amend the complaint as
above stated, also over the objections of counsel for Respondents. Such testimony was
received and amendment allowed subject to a motion to strike. The motions to strike-
were duly made by Respondents' counsel and denied by the undersigned with the proviso
that ''both -motions- might -.be renewed at the close of the hearing. Said -motions were
renewed at the close of the hearing and the undersigned reserved ruling thereon for his'
Intermediate Report,, and now rules that said motions and each, of them be ,. and they
are hereby, granted.
INTERNATIONAL-"BROTHERHOOD OF-,BOILERMAKERS 1199
finds that Richfield ' Oil Corporation is engaged in interstate commerce as it is
defined in the Act; and thAt'it will effectuate , the, policies of the Act for the
Board to assume and exercise +] urisdiction herein:"
U. THE . LA1 NA, ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Boilermakers, Pipefitters •tial^$t r shezld Council Al, 'and Santa Barbara Coun-
cil, AFL, and each of them are`1ailior or-anizaticn within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.'....-4 :.
III. THE ALI.1?6LD UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A..,Events leading up. to ;the installation of picket line
1. 'Respondents' contacts with and statements to Superior Tank, the primary
employer, or its agents and representatives; and like statements. to Richfield
and other concerns as secondary employers, their agents, and supervisory
employees
The record discloses that RicLfield owns or controls most of the oil and gas
`leases in the Cuyama Valley; California, located along the Cuyama River in the
.counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara ; oil and/or gas was first d'is-
covered in 1948, on what is referred to in the record as the Russell Ranch Lease
or Area,' located in the northerly part of the oil and gas field ; and in 1949,
,a further discovery was made in the southerly portion of the Cuyama Field, some-
times referred to as the South Cuyama Field.
At all times material herein, Richfield had a contract with Superior Tank and
Construction Company, herein called Superior or Superior Tank (the primary
.employer concerned herein), under the terms of which Superior was to furnish
and install certain vapor recovery systems on approximately 14 wells situated
in, both the north and south portions of Cuyama Field.'
Col it Timmons is president of Superior,' Howard W. Vaughn is manager of
the oil field division, Carl Herrell is manager of Superior's Bakersfield Branch
,Office, and all three testified herein!
The record discloses that Superior Tank is a nonunion contractor and operator
.and has been such for at least some 12 years. The Boilermakers has attempted
to organize its employees and has picketed Superior off and on for 12 years ; under.
-date December 2, 1946, Bakersfield Council at a regular meeting took action as
-follows :
-.NN\v BusinnEss : Letter from Boilermakers #92 taken up. Move, seconded
and"carried, we place Superior Tank and Const. Company on the unfair. list
of the Council, and the oil companies be so notified by the secretary."
On December 15, 1949, Copeland, as secretary of the Bakersfield Council, wrote
:Eddie Hoffman of the Procurement Department of Richfield, in which letter it was
stated in part:
° Sometimes called North Cuyama Field.
8 It should be noted that a single contract covered all wells to be furnished with the
recovery systems. As will be noted below, the General Counsel contends, in effect, that
Richfield's operations in the Cuyama Valley is a dual one.
O At all times material herein the Fluor Corporation had a contract for and was in
the process of constructing a natural gasoline absorption plant in the south portion of
Cuyama Field, which plant is referred to herein as Plant 10.
11J. It. Cope and, secretary. of Bakersfield Council, .on December 2, 1946, and at time
of hearing, testified that notice of the Council's • action was served "on the oil
companies on the day following the adoption of the nrotions" He further testified that
:Superior Tankhas'been continuously on the unfair list since December 2, 1946.
1200 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 10, 1949, a letter was addressed to your Company, as well as'
to all other oil companies, calling to their attention that ... the
Superior Tank and Construction Company had been officially placed on.
the "We do not patronize" list of the Kern County Central Labor Council and
this Building Trades Council. In that letter we asked the cooperation of
these oil companies to use companies other than these two above mentioned
on any work,.,either maintenance or contract as they are not signators (sic)
to any labor agreement and to our knowledge do not employ members of
our affiliated unions.
The letter further stated:
We feel that it is important, both to the contracting groups, to organized
labor and to the firm employing labor or contractors that the same wage
scale and working conditions should be adhered to by all parties for the
mutual benefit of those parties.
Under date of February 6, 1950, Smedley, as "Business Representative" of the
Santa Barbara Council, wrote H. H. Kelley, purchasing agent for Richfield, to
the effect that it had been brought to the attention of the Santa Barbara Councils
that the Superior Tank and Construction Company had been doing a consider-
able amount of work for Richfield in the northern ` section of' Santa Barbara,
County and in the Cuyama Valley and that according to Smedley's understanding
Superior Tank had been placed upon the "We Do Not Patronize" list of prac-
tically all local unions and councils in Southern California, "which sets up a,
very unsatisfactory situation when they go in with non-union people in the
sections where several union contracts are operating with all union employees,
such as in the Cuyama Valley District."
The letter concluded as follows :
Therefore, we would greatly appreciate having you duly consider this:,
matter, and advise us if anything can be done to avoid complications with
this firm.
Smedley further advised Kelley that he had written Superior Tank asking for-
a conference for the purpose of trying to get Superior Tank to operate under
union conditions; and that he had received a reply from Superior Tank under
date of December 27, 1949, but to date of February 6, 1950, Superior Tank hadl
made no attempt to hold a conference with Santa Barbara Council.
On February 20 or 21, 1950," Howard W. Vaughan, manager of the Oil Field
Division for Superior Tank, met at Smedley's office in Santa Barbara. The meet-
' ing lasted about an hour. In this connection Vaughan testified :
Q. Well, what did you say and what did he (Smedley) say?
A. As I recall, I don't recall his exact words, but Mr. Smedley at that time
indicated that he hoped we could work out an arrangement of some kind and
the arrangement he suggested was, of course, a union contract. Mr. Smedley
told me at that time that there was a lot of background with.this thing-
and that our company had been approached on numerous other occasions by
various organized labor organizations, and I told him I wasn't in a position
to make any contract or make any comment or commitment because I felt
at that time that organized labor hadn't even presented itself upon our
men to the extent they were ready for it.
" Smedley fixes the date as of February 20, and Howard W. Vaughan, of February 21.,
The sequence of events as shown by certain exhibits and testimony of other witnesses,
would tend to indicate that February 20 was the correct date..
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF "BOILERMAKERS 1201
In this same connection, Smedley testified :
Q. Now what did Mr. Vaughan say to you?
A. It would be impossible to answer that. I will answer • you this way :
That it was a very congenial meeting, but Mr. Vaughan did not think that
his company cared to do business with organized labor.
On this basis of the testimony, of Vaughan and Smedley, the only ones at this
meeting, the undersigned cannot find that Smedley demanded a contract of Super-
ior,Tank. Smedley impressed the undersigned as one who:,was fully informed as to ,
the steps necessary to be taken before a legal contract could be entered into under
the Act ; and at the most seemed to want a tacit understanding that Superior Tank
would change from a nonunion employer to one who would bargain with the
Council and its constituent union in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
Following his meeting with Vaughan and on February 22, 1950,12 Smedley re-
ported the results of his meeting with Vaughan at a Council meeting held on
February 22. The approved minutes of such meeting disclose as follows :
GOOD OF THE COUNCIL:
The secretary read several communications pertaining to the Superior
Tank and Construction Company, a non-union firm, operating in the oil fields,
especially at this time, as far as our Council and Local Unions are con-
cerned, in the Cuyama Valley Area. The Secretary explained he had done
everything possible in a meeting with Mr. H. K. (sic ) Vaughan, Oil Field
Division Manager of the Superior Tank and Construction Company to see
if there was any way possible to straightening up this Firm with organized
labor. Failing in this, it had called a meeting in Santa Maria, Tuesday,
February 21, of representatives of Fitters and Welders Local' #250,
Plumbers and Fitters Local #460 of Bakersfield, Teamsters Local of Bakers-
field, Boilermakers Local #92, Teamsters Representatives of Santa Maria,
and the Council's Representative, bro. A. E. Atkinson, of Santa Maria Area.
At {this meeting a program was mapped out to place pickets on the
entrances to the various leases in the Cuyama Valley Area where the
Superior Tank and Construction Company is operating, with the under-
standing that the expense of.the pickets be Iorne by the Local Unions
directly involved in the work the Superior Tank Company is doing. Mr.
Kelley of the Richfield Oil Company was then notified that the pickets
would be placed Thursday morning, Feb. 23 inasmuch as this is the oil
company that had given the Superior Tank and Construction Company
work in the Cuyama Valley Area. Mr. Kelley had requested that the
pickets be held off until noon of February 23rd, and that every effort would
be, made to get our grievances against the.Superior Tank and Construction
Company adjusted to., our satisfaction, and that he, the Secretary, had
agreed that the delay would be arranged."
v Unless otherwise specified , events referred to herein occurred in 1950.
"Herbert Kelley, director of purchases for Richfield, testified that on February 22
(Washington 's birthday), Smedley called him by telephone from Santa Barbara:
He (Smedley ) said that apparently , due to our still continuing our contractual
work with Superior Tank, be was afraid there would have to be a picket line placed
upon the area, that he could not fool his boys much longer.
Kelley Informed Smedley that he had heard some talk to the effect that a picket line
might be put out, and asked Smedley to postpone any action and promised that he would.
do his utmost to gather the available department heads first thing on the morning of
February 23, and discuss the whole situation . Kelley testified that such discussion was
had with Richfield organizational personnel ; about 5 o'clock on the evening of February 23,
Edward D. Blackwell, secretary and business manager of Lodge 62 of the Boilermakers,
1202 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smedley testified that he "approved of a plan to-place pickets against Superior
Tank Company on their work." '
The record indicates that Blackwell , secretary and- business manager of
Local #92 of the Boilermakers , learned . from the Santa Barbara Council that
the latter and its constituents were going to picket Superior in the Cuyama Oil
and Gas Field ; Local #92 had a number of its members employed by Fluor
Corporation in the construction of Plant 10 for Richfield , which fact caused
Blackwell 's immediate interest in the proposed action ; Blackwell got in touch
with John Earn Winn , manager of construction for Fluor , and informed him of
the proposed action against Superior Tank ; Winn in turn notified Vice-Presi-
dent Dunn of Fluor of the facts ; Dunn contacted Kelley of Richfield , who sub
.sequently instructed Vaughan of Superior to-move Superior employees from at
least the southern position of the Cuyama Field." While General Counsel's
witnesses contended and testified that Kelley had reference to Plant 10 area
as the portion . of the field to be vacated by Superior , it appears to the under-
signed that Blackwell understood that Superior was to vacate the entire field
and when it appeared otherwise , Respondents proceeded with their plans for a
picket line and so informed Kelley and Richfield" The General Counsel's con-
tentions, as to the effect of Respondents ' or their agents' contacts with and
statements to the primary employer , Superior Tank, and to Secondary Employer
Richfield and other secondary employers , will be discussed in, detail in "Con-
clusions" below.
2. The picket line; the alleged violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) (A), and
(4) (B)
a. The picket line
A picket line was established pursuant to action of Santa Barbara Council
at about 8 a. in. on February 24 under the supervision of Ray Conley, business,_-
manager for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #460, and president of Bakers
field Council. Pickets were placed at a point on State Highway 166 where a
road running southward leads into what is described in the record as. the Plant
10 area ; and pickets were likewise placed at another point on Highway 166
where the latter intersects 'with a road running north and south in what is at
the time described in the record as Russell Ranch area or North Cuyama area,
and as Plant 9.10
The pickets were furnished with signs or placards, reading :
informed Kelley that inasmuch as Superior Tank had not been removed from the Cuyama
Valley Field that the Building Trades would establish a picket line and said further,
"Well, the only thing I can say is in all probability if a picket line is established the
union men involved in that area and also the truck drivers, a certain percentage of them,
will refuse to cross the picket lines."
14 Blackwell testifi d that Winn had informed him on February 23 that Richfield had
Plant 10 area ; "and, I in turn translated this to Blackwell shortly thereafter." Winn
testified , in one instance , that Dunn advised him that Superior would be removed from
Plant 10 area ; "and, I'in turn translated this to Blackwell shortly thereafter." Winn
later testified :
Q. When he returned your call, what did you tell hinr? -
A. I tcld him that Mr. Dunn had advised me that Richfield had advised himi,that
Superior Tank would be out of the field that night.
U It should be noted that events antedating the establishment of the-picket line and
statements made either orally or in writing were had with. or made to employers, their
agents, or representatives and not with employees , as defined in the Act. -
10 The gates leading into these two portions of the oil and gas fields are referred to as
Gate 9 and Gate 10.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS- 1203
SUPERIOR TANK CO.
UNFAIR
TO
BLDG. TRADES DEPT.
A. F. of L.
and instructed by Conley substantially as follows : They were not to tell
anyone that they. could not go through the picket line; if anyone asked if he
could go through the picket line, tell them to use their own judgment as they
"were twenty-one years of, age"; and that the picket signs, worded as above
stated, should be displayed at all times. On February 24 and 25, while in
charge of the picket line, Conley did not operate from the office set up by Santa
Barbara Council in the town of Cuyama,17 but used his personal car, a black
Hudson.
On February 25, Conley delivered, or caused to be delivered, to each picket
written,instructions as follows : .
Say no more than this Taft Hartley-Complaint 18 has been filed I have
nothing to Say. I just carry this sign If thay (sic) ask can I go through
Picket Line just Say you are 21 yrs old. use your own Judgment.
In his brief, the General Counsel limits the situs of the alleged unfair labor
practices into "four groups": (1) Those allegedly occurring at the junctions
of State Highway 166 and the road leading to Plant 9, referred to herein and
in the record as Gate 9; (2) those occurring at the junction of said Highway
166 and the road leading to Plant 10, referred to herein and in the record as
Gate 10; (3) the Vaughan 10 incident which occurred according. to General
Counsel's witness, one Everett H. Vaughan, on, a county road which runs
south from its junction with Highway 166 and is located between Gate 10
and the town of Cuyama-about 2 miles from said Gate 10; 20 and (4) the picket-
ing at the junction' of Highway 166 and the' road leading into. Richfield's "South
Cuyama Pump Station" located at about 11/4 miles southeast of Gate 10.
Before a discussion of the several. incidents relied, upon by the General Coun-
sel. as proof of Respondents' violation of the Act is had, it should be noted
that Respondents contend in substance and effect that such picketing as; did
take -place was primary picketing, notwith4tanding it took place at entrances
to 'Richfield's owned or leased oil and gas premises, by reason of. the fact that,:
(a) The picketing was strictly limited to time when the si us"of the dispute
was located on the secondary employer's (Richfield's) premises;, (b) at the
time of the picketing the primary employer (Superior Tank) was engaged at
its normal business, at the sites; 21 (c) the picketing was limited to places
17 Cuyama is a town located on Highway 166 in sections 23 and 24, Twp. 10 N. R„
26. W. S. B. B. & M. i
16 The record discloses that a charge had been filed by and on behalf of Richfield on
February 24, 1950; the complaint was not issued until May 12, 1950, and it is clear that
the word "complaint" also used in these written instructions to picket had reference
to the "charge."
19 Not to be confused with H. W. Vaughan, manager of the oil fields division for
Superior Tank.
20 As is disclosed by a map contained in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10 page 5
in evidence.
21-The General Counsel, In effect, contends that picketing at Gate 10 was illegal, since
it is claimed that Superior Tank had discontinued and/or abandoned any further work in
Plant 10 area. This. contention is discussed below in connection with consideration of
Gate 10 incidents and found to be without merit.
961974-52-vol; 95-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
reasonably close to the location of the situs; and -(d) the picketing disclosed
clearly that the dispute was with Superior Tank as the primary employer 22
Attorney Guntert's brief, while admitting that employees of Fluor, Klein-
schmidt Construction Company, ABC Construction Company, Brown Trucking
Company, and Rush Swoape Trucking Company, respected Respondents' picket
line, states that they did so as the result "of double talk," by Respondents'
agents which implied that if they did cross the picket line and thereby disobey
union rules, they could expect to be penalized for so doing. , ..
From observation of those union-member witnesses, the undersigned got the
impression that most, if not all of them, personally approved of the picket line
action in the instant case.
Gate 9 Incidents n
(1) Forrest E. Haudenschield, a truck driver for Mojave Corporation, testi-
fled in substance that on the day the picket line started (February 24, 1950)
he took a truckload of mud 2' to Richfield ; that. he arrived at Gate 9 about 9 .
or 10 o'clock and found two pickets stationed at the gate; each had signs
reading "Superior Tank unfair, A. F. L. on strike," and that when he asked
the pickets what was happening, they said, "Superior Oil (sic) was on strike
and they were picketing Richfield Oil Company." 25
Haudenschield delivered his load to Richfield, and accompanied by a Rich-
field bookkeeper on two occasions and by an official. of Richfield, made three trips
to the Respondents' "shack" at the town of Cuyama ; on each trip Haudenschield
attempted to contact a Respondent cfficial without success. He testified in
substance that he was a member of the Teamsters Local 224 and had been to
many strikes and knew how to conduct himself in such occasions.
Carmen Lopez testified that he was one of the two pickets on duty 'atGate 9
from February 24 to March 3; that he recalled the'occasion of Haudenschield's
22 See Moore Dry Dock Company ( Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL), 92' NLRB 547,
and cases cited.
22 It should be noted that all illegal acts contended for and upon which the General"'
Counsel introduced testimony were limited to February 24 and 25, 1950 . The General:
Counsel , in effect, contended that the picket line was per se a violation of Section 8 (b)
( 4) (A) and ( 4) (B).
24 A type of prepared mud used in drilling oil and gas wells by the rotary process.
25 During his examination Haudenschleld gave various versions in this connection ; for-
instance , he testified in part as follows :
Q. And what did you address him about?
A. What was going on.
Q. And.what did he ( picket ) say to that?
A. Superior Tank is unfair and we are picketing all roads to Richfield leases.2e
( By Mr . GARRETT ) and he told you that Superior Tank was unfair.
A. Yes. .
Q. Did you say anything to that?
A. Nope. I just asked him whether I could go through or not, and he said he would
rather I didn 't go through, and that he was picketing all Richfield roads.
r r ♦ • s • •
Q. Now, what did the one ( picket ) with the hat on say in that respect about
picketing Richfield roads?
A. He said Superior Tank . was unfair and that Richfield would not recognize the
Boilermakers ' Union or something like that about getting Superior Tank off. the leaseaT
Superior Tank's work was on certain wells all of which were either on leased land or.
land controlled by Richfield.
27, It should be noted that Haudenschield for the first time introduced the 'Boilermakers'
Union ," into his testimony toward the - end of some 47 pages of cross-examination. The
General Counsel made no reference to the "Boilermakers '" -on direct examination , nor did
he choose to develop it further on redirect examination.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1205
tie
arrival at Gate 9 on February .24 that the latter asked Lopez "what was going
on," whereupon Lopez directed Haudenschield's attention to the picket sign
which stated that Superior Tank was unfair to the Building Trades Department,
A. F. L., and stated he-was picketing Superior Tank; Haudenschield then said,
"Well, I am an A. F. of L. driver and I don't want to go through, but I didn't
know nothing about it, and what it is."
Lopez denied telling Haudenschield or, any other person that Respondents
were picketing Richfield's, Richfield leases, or Richfield roads ; and that on a
few occasions when he was -asked if the strike was against Richfield he told
those inquiring that it was not, but was against Superior Tank and called
attention to the picket sign to that effect. It is undisputed that Haudenschield
delivered his load of "mud" to Richfield, and while he spent considerable time
in company with Richfield officials in an unsuccessful attempt to contact Re-
spondents' officials in order to get statements from the latter concerning the
"strike," it would appear that such efforts were made on behalf of or at the-
instance of Richfield, inasmuch as it furnished the transportation and an escort,
for each of three trips to the town of Cuyama.
Haudenschield testified in substance that he had not talked to anybody about
his experience on the picket line ; had signed no statement in connection with
such experience for anybody ; that on the preceding Saturday (June 10, 1950) 28
at the request of his employer he telephoned Ben Grodsky, General Counsel, and
"I talked to Mr. Grodsky over the phone that Saturday about two minutes and
that is all I talked to. He said he was going to send me a subpoena."
Lopez and Haudenschield were the only witnesses who. testified concerning
the latter's experience on the picket line at Gate 9; and he was the only witness
for the General Counsel who referred to the claim that "Richfield would not
recognize the Boilermakers' Union . .." in connection with "getting Superior
Tank off the lease." On the record as a whole the undersigned is of the opinion
that the pickets were instructed, as testified to by Conley and referred to here
inabove, to the effect that anyone asking to go through the picket line were
to use their own judgment as they were 21, years of age ; and were further
given written instructions set forth hereinabove ; and that the pickets followed
such instructions.". The undersigned is not persuaded from the evidence or the
record that either of the pickets on-duty at Gate 9 on February 24, 1950, told
Haudenschield that the Respondents were picketing Richfield'. its roads, or leases ;
and that the contrary is true. Since Haudenschield honored the picket line
there was no occasion to induce or encourage him as an employee to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal to. force or require any employer ( Richfield ) to cease
doing business with any other person (Superior Tank). The record will not sup-
port a finding that Respondents or their agents, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) and (4) (B), of the Act, induced or encouraged Haudenschield to engage in
a strike or concerted refusal to force Richfield to cease . doing business with
Superior Tank. It is so found 80
se Haudenschield testified on June 12, 1950.
_° It Is apparent from the record as a whole that Respondents were advised and deter-
mined to conduct the strike or picket line In a•manner that would be within . law and in
conformity with Board and court decisions and that they did so.
*so While Haudenschield testified that he spent 9 hours at Richfield Oil & Gas Field on
this occasion in an attempt , inter alia, to learn if the strike was against Richfield, he
also testified that he delivered this load to Richfield, and had permission to do so, but
he did not state the time he got.such alleged permission or from whom he got it. He
did state, however, that "the pickets never turned me In," implying that the pickets
had assumed to grant him permission to cross the picket line. From the fact that
• Haudenschield talked to his employer on telephone on February 24, and was told that a
r
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. (2) Clyde Barbour, a truck driver for F. M. Rumbley, testified in substance
that on February 25 he drove to Gate 9 of the Cuyama field and fqund two pick-
ets at the gate, one of whom held up a picket sign "and said there was a strike
in the area." Barbour testified :
By Mr. GRODSKY:
Q. Did he say anything.else?
(Intervening objection overruled.)
The WITNESS. Well, he said they were striking Superior Tank Company.
I believe it. was Superior Tank Company be said they.were striking.
By Mr. GRODSKY :
Q. And what else?
(Intervening objection overruled.)
The WITNESS. He said they were stopping all traffic going into that gate.al
Barbour further testified that while he was talking to the picket "there was
another man who pulled up in a car" and Barbour was told by the picket that this
"other man" was a union representative,
Barbour further testified :
By Mr. GRODSKY:
Q. Do you recall what kind of a car this man who was described as it
union representative was driving?
A. I am not sure what kind of a car it was.32
Barbour testified that he could not remember the wording on the picket sign
except A. F. of L.; that he knew that the "strike" or picket line was set up
against Superior Tank, the primary employer, is disclosed by his testimony, as
follows :
Q. You know the action was against Superior Tank Company didn't you?
A. I didn't just know who it was against.
Richfield representative would pick him up ; the fact he was so picked up; the three trips
made in company with Richfield agents to the Union 's "shack" in Cuyama leads the
undersigned to the belief that he was instructed by his employer to assist Richfield in its
effort to discover evidence against Respondents. The type of Haudenschield testimony
and his persistent efforts in volunteering statements not called for or required by the
questions, but all attempting to discredit Respondents tend to confirm such belief.
"Insofar as the Barbour incident is referred to in the General Counsel's brief, the
answer next above is relied upon by General Counsel as the crux of Barbour's testimony.
92 At this point it developed that about a week prior to the day Barbour testified that
he was interviewed by the General Counsel, who sought to learn whether Barbour
remembered the make and color of the car in question . Over objections of Respondent's
counsel, the undersigned permitted. further questioning in this connection, in part as
follows
By Mr. GRODSKY :
Q. Do you recall now what, car, what make of car you thought it was?
The WITNESS. I thought it was a Nash.
By Mr. GRODSKY:
Q. And-do you recall what color you thought it was?
A. It was a greenish color, I believe. ,
There is much testimony about an alleged Nash car, allegedly , containing one and some-
times two men, whom different witnesses testified they were told by pickets and
certain unnamed persons that such man or men were union officials, who allegedly made
different statements which the General Counsel seeks to charge to the Respondents. The
color of the "Nash car" was variously described as green, gray, and tan. The undersigned
can base no findings herein upon the alleged statements or conduct of the man and/or
men in the Nash car, since It is impossible to identify any of them as individuals or to .
find that any of the unknowns were in fact agents of the Respondents or any of them.
It is so found.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OFT. BOILERMAKERS 1207
Q. All right. You talked to your employer and he told you that the action
'wasn't against Richfield, and then you went to Gate 9 and you saw a picket
holding a sign, and it said something about Superior Tank Company, wasn't
that enough to make you realize that the labor action there wasn't against
Richfield and that it was against the Superior Tank Company?
A. I thought it was, yes.
Q. You thought it was Superior Tank Company, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you knew, as far as you could learn from anything that anybody
told you or showed you on that day, that the strike was against Superior
Tank, didn't you?
A. I knew that it wasn't against Richfield.
Barbour drove his truck (a tanker) into Plant 9 where he loaded it with oil
products for transportation. While at Plant 9 he was interviewed by and gave
a signed , unsworn statement to Richfield's attorney, Mr. Guntert ; and on or
about June 1, 1950, Barbour gave a signed, unsworn statement to Mr. Grodsky 9a
While Barbour insisted that the picket told him "there was a strike in the
area," and "they were stopping all traffic going in," he was also told that if he
went in the gate he "would be crossing the picket line." -
Carmen Lopez, a picket at Gate 9 during the entire strike, denied.telling anyone
that-he was stopping all traffic going into the gates at Plant 9.. On the record,
the undersigned is convinced that the picket followed the oral and written in-
struction as testified to by Conley and set forth hereinafter ; and is further
convinced from the record that Respondents were-informed and aware of the
requirements necessary to be followed in conducting a , legal primary strike
when conducted against a primary employer on the premises of a secondary
employer and undertook to follow such requirements, in view. of all of which
the undersigned finds that the record will not support a finding that the pickets
told Barbour that Respondents were stopping . all traffic through Gate 9 or
that Respondents did cause anything to be done. in order to induce or encourage
Barbour to engage in any of the activities referred to in Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (4) (B) of the Act in order to force or require Richfield to cease doing
business with Superior Tank. It is so found.
(3) (a) Walter Reed's testimony
Kleinschmidt" Construction Company's employees, namely, Walter Reed,
superintendent, James Mathis, Dick Bermele, Bob Brownlee, and "Red" White's
had occasion to be in the Plant 9 area of Cuyama field on February 24.
According to Reed, he dropped Bermele at the field from his. "pickup" truck
so that the latter could pick up a motor grader ; that Mathis, a laborer, traveled
in his own car ; Reed then went through the Plant 9 gate, at which pickets were
stationed, and crossed the river to the "bulk" (head) Reed's company was
building. Then, according to Reed, a man, one of the pickets` at Gate 9 later
identified as Tulio Zaini," came to the river bank and asked Reed if he "had
a man by the name Mathis working" and asked if he could talk to him; that
m The statements were offered in evidence as General Counsel ' s Exhibits 2-A and 2-B ;
upon objection by counsel for Respondents the undersigned sustained the same and ordered
the exhibits to be included in the record as "rejected exhibits."
81 Sometimes in record appears as Kleinschmid.
35 It appears that "Red " White did not work in the oil field on this occasion, and went
to the field in order to drive a truck back to Bakersfield . He did not testify.
.
Zaini was not available as a witness at the hearing ; he had gone or moved to' Ohio.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reed then called Mathis, who went to the river "edge" and talked to Zaini.
"across the little short creek" n there. Reed testified :
By Mr. GRODSKY:
Q. Could you hear from where you were what this man on one - bank of
the river was talking to Mathis on the other side about?
A. Just a sketch here and there because the engines were running and
I was standing right by those "Cats" and I couldn't hear it completely
enough to repeat the conversation to where it would be intelligent. [Em-
phasis added.]
Q. Well, what did you hear of the conversation?
(Intervening objections overruled and Reed permitted to answer.)
The WITNESS. Words to the effect that he had no business being in there
because they were on strike.38
By Mr. GRonsKY:
Q. Will you give your present recollection of the words you heard the
picket use?
A. Well, anything I would say I wouldn't be-it is just a present recol-
lection, and I couldn't say it was exactly what the picket said. He. said
words -to the effect that he had no business being in there, that they were
on strike, and as far as I can remember is the substance of what he said.
Q. Now, coming back to after this picket had spoken to Mathis, can you
tell us what Mathis did, if anything?
A. He went home.
Q. Did he talk to you before then? _
(Intervening objections overruled.)
The WITNESS. He asked me what he should do, I told him that I would
advise him, that it was entirely up to him.
Reed further testified that "when he (Zaini) asked me if Mathis was working
on the river and while he was waiting for Mathis to come up to the river bank,
he told me that we better shut down and get off the job." 80 This statement was
not referred to by Reed when he testified concerning Zaini's statements to him
when Zaini first approached him and allegedly asked for Mathis. In any event,
assuming that such a statement was made to Reed upon Mathis' arrival, the state-
ment would not constitute inducement and encouragement of an employee under,
the Act-Reed, as superintendent, was a management or employer representative,
and "it is settled law, that inducement of employers aimed at effectuating a
secondary work stoppage does not violate any of the prohibitions contained in the
Act." ."
Picket Lopez, an associate of Zaini at Gate 9, testified that the latter went to
the river where Reed and Mathis were working in order to get some paper to
"go to the bathroom."
On the basis of Reed's testimony, the undersigned is not convinced that Reed
could have heard the conversation, if any, between Zaini and Mathis. Reed
testified that the picket asked for Mathis by name which fact, if true, would
87 The "creek" was the Cuyama River.
sa The above answer was stricken by the undersigned , on motion of Respondents ' counsel.
9" The. undersigned believes that if the picket had made the above statement to Reed
before Mathis arrived at the river bank, Reed would, being Mathis' foreman, have shut
his "Cats" down and joined Mathis at the river where he could have heard the conversation
of both the picket and Mathis. '
*"Teamsters Local Union No. 878 , et al. (Arkansan Express, Inc .), 92 NLRB 255;
Beairigh t Pacific, Ltd., 82 NLRB 271.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF: BOILERMAKERS 1209
.indicate that the picket and Mathis were acquainted and may have had matters
having no connection ' .with the "strike" to discuss ., , Moreover ,. Reed testified
that he did not hear any conversation on Mathis ' part ; and from Reed's own
testimony , quoted in part above , the undersigned is not. convinced and cannot
find that the picket , Zaini, made statements in substance or "to the effect"
as testified to by Reed.41 - It is so found.''
It is further found that the record will not support a finding that the Re-
spondents , their officials , or agents , in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A),
<4) (A), and ( 4) (B) of the Act, induced or encouraged Mathis to engage
in a strike or concerted refusal to perform services with an object of forcing
Richfield to cease doing business with Superior Tank. It is so found.
(b) Harold Bermele testified in substance that on February 24 he drove a
Chevrolet pickup 43 to Richfield 's lease in company with Bob Brownlee and
Red White and entered the oil field by way of a road he "always heard called the
County Road ," located between Gates 9 and 10, to pick up a motor grinder blade
(which operated under its own . power),. after which he turned the pickup
truck over to Red White; and that he (Bermele ) then drove the motor grader
blade onto Highway 166 and to Gate 9 entrance.
As. he drove to Gate 9 he saw one44 picket with a card in his hand, which
card said "something about being unfair , AF of L, and the deal about Superior
Tank"; that he asked the picket if it was all right to go through . The picket
said , "A good union man wouldn't," which was all that the picket said at that
time ; Bermele then stated to the picket that he had a good friend "in there and
if there was anything wrong" he would like to go into the field and talk to
his friend , if it was all right , to which the picket replied that he didn't know
about it himself.'
- According to Bermele , while he and the picket were talking , a green Nash
sedan with two men in it drove up ; that he approached the men in the car
with the same question about getting , his friend out of there and they said,
"Yes," if he wanted to park "my rig" inside the gate and walk down there,
he could do so; that after getting inside of the picket line he was picked no
by a Superior Oil truck 48 and hauled 'to the job site where Superintendent Reed,
Red White , and Bob Brownlee were located.
According to Bermele , he first talked to White and told him ' that they
(pickets ) toad Bermele "at the gate it was a legal strike" and that they (White
and Brownlee ) "had better get out of there" ; 97 that he next talked to Brownlee
and said to him,
Well, I told him they told me it was a legal strike at the gate and that he
;Brownlee] didn 't have any business there.
4' In this connection see testimony of Brownlee quoted below, to the effect that.the picket
personally hailed Mathis ; and that Brownlee could not hear any of the conversation
between Mathis and the picket.
43 During the hearing General Counsel moved .the undersigned to strike the words "Su-
perior Tank" on page 300 of the record and substitute the word "Richfield" in Reed's
testimony . The undersigned reserved ruling for his Intermediate Report, and now rules
'that the motion he and it is hereby granted.
4' As is noted heretofore, Reed testified that Bermele rode with him.
44 This was about the time picket Zaini went to the "bathroom."
41 Bermele was asked if he had told everything that he and the picket had said to each'
other. He replied : "A. Just told me-he just told me a good union man wouldn't go
through, and that it was a legal strike." [ Emphasis added.],
46 Insofar as the record indicates , " Superior Oil" seems to have no connection with
Superior Tank.
47.It should be noted that Bermele did not quote the pickets as having said, "They
[White and Brownlee] had better get out of there."
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ThaAt he followed Brownlee and Reed ' out of Gate 9 "and I drove my own
pickup out and was there when they (pickets) were talking to them (Reed and
Brownlee) and they told them the same thing they had told me-that it was
a legal strike and they shouldn't be in there.s49
(c) Bob Brownlee testified in substance that on the morning of February 24,
he, in company with Bermele b0 and Red White, went to the Richfield properties
in Cuyama Oil Field ; that they first entered the field from Highway 166 on a
road sometimes called a county road, where they dropped Bermele, who was to,
and the record discloses that be did, pick up a motor grader blade; that with
Red White driving the pickup truck in which Brownlee, White, and Bermele
had arrived at the field, White and Brownlee returned to Highway 166 and then"
to Gate 9; they found pickets at Gate 9 with picket signs or placards which
Brownlee could not state word for word, "but it meant that the strike was
against Superior Tank."
White and Brownlee drove through Gate 9 without stopping and on to. the
site of the job being constructed by Kleinschmidt Company where they went
to work. Brownlee- operated a tractor, sometimes called a "Cat". or a "Dozer"
Brownlee further testified that Mathis, the laborer referred to hereinabove,
"was working right along with us"; Brownlee was working "just above Mathis"
-operating a tractor, when one of the boys, a picket, came to the river across
from where Mathis was working.
.In this connection, Brownlee testified :
(By Mr. GRonsxY) :
Q. What did you observe?
(Intervening objections overruled.)
The WITNESS. I just saw the picket wave his hand to Mathis.
(By Mr. GRODSKY) : .
Q. Did you see Mathis do anything?
A. Yes. V
Q. What did you observe Mathis do? .
A. Well, Mathis went up to this side of the river, and he was talking to him
there. I couldn't hear what they said.61
Q. And what happened then?
A. Well, the picket turned around and went back.
Q. And did you observe what Mathis did then?
A. He got in his car and left.
Brownlee's testimony coincides with that of Bermele's in connection with the
latter's report that the strike was a legal strike, and a good union man would
not go through the picket line.
On cross-examination, Brownlee testified :
Q. And you went on up to the location of your work near plant 9, right?
A. Right.
48 It appears that White bad left the field with the truck, which occasioned his presence in
the field at that time. .
"Conclusions in connection with Bermele 's testimony are included with those of
Brownlee 's testimony set forth next below.
60 Brownlee 's testimony , insofar as it relates to Bermele 's testimony concerning their
relations with each other on February 20, is in substantial agreement with Bermele'.s
testimony.
51 The above testimony should be contrasted with that of Reed, set out bereinabove,
wherein Reed said that he called Mathis at the pickets ' request and heard enough of the
conversation to conclude what the substance of the conversation was.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1211
Q. You didn't talk to the pickets going in?
A. No.
Q. You didn ' t talk to the pickets except when you were coming out, right?
A. That is right.-
s
Q. And when you came out you were the one who; talked to them. first?
A. Yes.
Q. You told them you were sorry you had gone through?
A. Yes, and I was too.
Q. And they didn't tell you at that time that the picket line was against
Richfield, did they?
A. No.
Q. The signs they carried said it was against Superior Tank, didn't they?
A. That is right.
Q. And they didn't attempt in any way to-dissuade you from going in
at the time you had gone in before, did they?
A. No, sir.
Conclusions with Reference to Kleinschmidt Employees
It is clear from the foregoing and the record that insofar as the Kleinschmidt
employees, namely Reed, Bermele, Brownlee, White, and Mathis, are concerned,
that the most the Respondents or their officers or agents did or said to such
employees was that the strike or action taken against Superior Tank,- as the
primary employer, was a legal strike or action, and that a good union man.
would not go through the picket lines.
As is found below, the strike was a legal one against a primary employer
with whom the Respondents ;had a labor dispute. Under these circumstances
it is clear that the record will not support a finding that the Respondents, their
officials, or agents, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) (A), and (4) (B)
of the act,.induced and encouraged Bermele or Brownlee to engage in conduct
proscribed thereby. It is so found.
(4) W: P: Carlock testified in substance that he was employed by Richfield;
that his work was that of a roustabout and a truck driver; ' that on February.
25, he went to the gate at plant 9 where he had a certain conversation with the
pickets."
Oarlock further testified that on February 25 he first went to Gate 9 where
the. events referred to next above occurred ; that he next -went to Gate 10, then
back to Gate 9, and finally back to date 10 again.
In connection with his first trip to Gate 10, Carlock testified that when he
arrived at Gate 10 there was but one picket who had a placard similar to.
Respondents' Exhibit 1." Carlock testified :
Q. And will you describe what happened at that gate?
A. He asked who I worked for and if I was-A. F. of L. I told him; "No,"
and that I worked for Richfield. He said, "Well, what are you going 'to:
do?" So I told him I was going in there to clean- out some of the pits' in.
52 It appears, however, that Carlock works a substantial part of his time as ,a vacation
driver (in the absence of other drivers on vacation), and also works as a "gang pusher"
or supervisory employee.
6' This episode is set out below in connection with General Counsel's contention that
Respondents illegally listed picket line violations, and is incorporated hereat by reference.
14 Respondent's Exhibit 1 reads as follows :
Superior Tank Co. UNFAIR to Bldg. Trades Dept. A. F. of L.
.f
1212 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL -L•ABOR. RELATIONS BOARD.
the tank forms. He said they were stopping everybody from going in
and he said it will be all right this time to go in, but he said, where ever
you go spread the word around to all of the boys that if 'they go in after
Monday morning, which would have been February 27, 1950, that they are
liable to have trouble getting out.M
Q. Did the picket explain why they were stopping everybody?
(Intervening objections overruled.)
The WITNESS. Well, the only thing that he did say to me-he said they
were having a little trouble in the place with Building Trades. He said
they was hiring some non-union men and he said if they let everybody
and anybody come in it would take them longer to get their trouble settled"e
Mr. GRODSKY. I have no further questions.
At the close of his direct examination above covering four pages of transcript,
it was apparent that the General Counsel sought to use only Carloek's -version
of this first Gate 10 episode, notwithstanding Carlock made, on this same day, a
second trip to Gate 10, and a return trip to Gate 10.
Some 37 pages of cross-examination disclosed that as a roustabout Carlock
gets $1.58% per hour ; as a truck driver $1.92; and as a gang pusher, on vacation
relief, which he said he was supposed to be at the time of the hearing, $1.90 per.
hour;. he started receiving $1.90 an hour. on June 12 (he testified on June 13),
and in February 1950 Carlock was receiving roustabout pay of $1.581/ per hour ."
Carlock further testified that while at Gate 10 he talked to a foreman known
as "Smitty" 68 and reported that the picket (at Gate 10) had said that at Smitty's
suggestion he went to the Richfield office, met Richfield's attorney, Guntert, who
asked him if he would sign a statement "of what the picket said," and "I told
him I would and he made it out and I signed it."
Otis Sinor, a respondent picket who acted as such all through the "strike,"
testified in substance that without exception he always followed the instructions
he received orally on February 24 and in writing on February 25 to the effect
that when anyone wanted to go through the picket line they were told that
they were 21 and to use their own judgment.
Curry Sexton, who served at Gate 10 throughout the strike along with Otis
Sinor, testified that he did not tell anyone while on picket duty that they were
not supposed to pass the picket line, or that everything was closed up inside.
Sexton testified :
Q. Did anybody come up and say that they had some material to deliver
to Richfield, would it be all right to go through?
A. Not to me, no sir.
Q. Did you hear them say that to your partner? -
0 For reasons set forth below the undersigned does not credit the "testimony" contained
in this paragraph.
sa The footnote next above is also applicable here.
57 He testified, however, that he had been driving a truck on and off since February
and before that time.
58 A. H . Smith , a general construction , foreman for Richfield , testified in substance that
be talked with a number of truck drivers parked near the entrance to Gate 10 on February
24; that on his "own initiative" he went to the Union's "shack," saw Galli, and asked for
a permit to get the "trucks in"; that Galli replied that insofar as he was concerned, his
hands were tied and be could issue no permit ; that he saw Galll, Conley, and one
Atkinson at Gate 10 after lunch and asked if ". . . anything had been released where
we could get the trucks in," and was told that everything stood as it was when he talked
to Galli - earlier in the morning. From Smith's voluntary activities above described it
appears that he was seeking evidence against the Respondents . It is so found.
INTERNATIONAL, BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1213
A. No, I didn't hear anybody. say that, because there wasn 't many Rich-
field trucks stopped. They all went. on through without stopping. Offhand
I couldn't remember seeing any Richfield trucks stop.
On, the foregoing and the entire record, the, undersigned is of the opinion, that
Foreman Smith's activities of February 24, referred to above, and. Carlock's
activities of February -25- were ordered or inspired by Richfield in an effort to
find evidence to support its contention that Respondent's activities were illegal.
On the testimony of Foreman Smith no finding of illegal conduct against the
Respondents-can be made. If Carlock's testimony with reference to the alleged
occurrence of the incident at Gate 10 can be credited, a finding adverse to the
Respondents might be made. It is clear from a preponderance of the evidence
that no Richfield trucks were stopped from entering the Cuyama Valley Oil
Field; that Respondents' pickets were carefully and painstakingly instructed to
follow the oral and written instructions set forth hereinabove, and that'they did
so. It necessarily follows that the undersigned does not creditCarlock's testi-
mony concerning an alleged conversation with a picket, at Gate 10 and quoted
above, and therefore finds that such alleged conversation did not in fact occur.
The record will not support a•finding that Respondents or their agents, in vio-
lation of the Act, induced or encouraged Carlock to engage in strike or concerted
refusal to. engage or refuse to engage in any act for any purpose. It is so found.
Gate 10 Incidents
Rush Swoape Trucking Company Employees
(1) (a) Hugh Philley, a truck driver for Swoape Trucking Company, herein-
after called Swoape, testified in substance that he drove one of two truck loads ,9
of casing for delivery to Richfield at Plant 10 area on February 24 and arrived
about 9: 30 a. in. He stopped his truck before reaching Gate 10 behind trucks
that had preceded his. He asked.Thomas Queen, a truck driver for another
company, what was going on,, and Queen replied that it was just a strike, "that
was all he knew." Kenneth Cation, a field foreman for Swoape, arrived after
Philley and got in touch with the latter.
Philley testified :
Q. What did you do then?
A. Well, we got in his car and went up to the picket Jines.
Q. Now, when you got to the picket line, will you tell me what you
observed?
A. Just two pickets.
Q. What did you do?
A. I didn't do anything. Kenney (Cation) asked them if we could go
through.
Q. Did you hear Kenney ask them that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you hear the picket say?
A. All he said was that all he coul$l tell us was that it was a picket line
and that if we went through we was running a picket line.
Q. Did you say anything to the picket?
A. No sir, not a word.
Q. Did Mr. Catian (sic) say anything after that to the picket?
A. Not that I remember.
*"' Richard Shadle, who did not testify, drove the other truck.
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Philley was asked if the pickets had a placard, and was shown Respondents'
Exhibit No. 1 in evidence. He replied :
I couldn't say for sure whether this is it or not. I didn't pay any attention.
I just saw it said something about being unfair to the AF of L and that is
all I paid attention to.
As related below, in connection with Cation's .testimony, Philley's load of
casing was delivered on that day February 24. Conclusions on Philley's testi-
mony are included with those of Cation, below.
(b) Kenneth Cation testified An substance that he is field foreman for
Swoape ; that he arrived at the Plant 10 Gate on February 24, after the two
trucks of casing referred to above in connection with Philley's testimony had
arrived and learned from his drivers that there was a picket line. Cation
testified :
I asked them (Philley and Shadle) that was the matter and they said
there was a picket line there. So I went to the gate and asked the pickets
what it was and they said that there was a strike on. They had placards in
their hands. I looked at it and it said "Superior Tank" on it.
I told the pickets our trucks were loaded and consigned to Richfield Oil.
I told them I wasn't going to Superior Tank and asked if we could go through,
and he said that there is a picket line there.
.So I asked permission to go through in my car to use my telephone. He
granted me that permission 60
Cation drove his car to a hilltop inside the oil field and telephoned his employer,
who in turn got in touch with one Hickman, business agent for the Teamsters
Local at Bakersfield, who advised that Cation get in touch with either
Ray Conley or Lee Galli, two union officials who were in the Cuyama Valley.
Cation located Conley, took him to the hilltop, and when Cation called Hickman
on his phone and Hickman answered, Cation turned the phone receiver over to
Conley who talked to Hickman.
After his talk with Hickman, Conley informed Cation that Hickman had de-
cided that since the Swoape trucks were en route to the field before the picket
line was established, Cation might pass through the picket line to deliver the two
truckloads of casing to Richfield. Conley passed these instructions on to the
pickets and the casing was delivered.
According to Cation, at the time the two trucks were permitted to pass through
the picket line, as nonviolators of the picket line, for reasons related above, he
told Conley that he "had a job" coming up the next day for the "Bell Oil Com-
pany, or lease," and that he "asked if we could do that job." Conley "said
that we couldn't that we were [would be] crossing the picket line."
In connection with the above request Cation testified:
Q. Will you tell us what Mr. Conley said to you with reference to future
deliveries?
A. He told us we could unload the load(s) we had there, and said that
if we brought any more over, we couldn't unload it.
Q. Where did he tell you that, was that when he was with you in the 'car?
A. Yes.
60 It appears that Cation had a radio phone in his car. The purpose of going inside
Gate 10 was to reach a hill or higher ground in order to make contact with Bakersfield
more readily.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1215
Were any of the truck drivers present at that time?
A. No 83
From the foregoing and the record it is evident that neither the Respondents
nor their agents, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ), (4) (A), and (4) (B) of
the Act, induced and encouraged or attempted to induce and encourage Hugh
Philley to engage in conduct proscribed thereby and it is so found . It is all so
evident that Respondents ' and/or their agents ' .' contacts with and conduct
toward Kenneth Cation violated no prohibition of any section of the Act, and
it is so found.
(2) Thomas Queen testified in substance that as a truck driver from Brown
Truck Company he drove his truck with oil well casing to Gate 10 of Richfield's
Cuyama Valley Oil Field on February 24 and that when he approached said gate
he saw two pickets with placards . In this connection Queen testified :
Q. Do you recall what was written on the cards?
A. Well, all I actually-all I actually noted was it had the A. F. of L.
sign on it , and that was enough for me. That is all I looked for . [Empha-
sis added.]
Q. Will you describe what you did?
A. When I seen the pickets at the gate, I parked on the right -hand side of
the road and walked across and asked them if it was permissible for me to
deliver this load of pipe for drilling , -and they said it was not . . . no one
was supposed to pass. [Emphasis added.]
The General Counsel apparently relies upon the emphasized portion of Queen's
answer above as evidence that Respondents induced or encouraged Queen as an
employee , in violation of the Act.
The undersigned does not agree . The most that may be said of Queen's
testimony is that when he saw the A. F. of L. picket sign that was all he wanted
to know , and that he had no intention or desire to violate the picket line. As to
the portion of Queen's testimony which apparently intrigues the General Counsel,
it should be noted that the words "it is not" are immediately modified, first
by a pause and then by an explanatory statement , "no one is supposed to pass,"
all of which may be summed up as a good union man' will not, cross a picket
line. Even assuming that Queen literally quoted the pickets' language , rather
than stating his best recollection of it, the record will not support a finding
that by such statements on their behalf , the Respondents , in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) ( A), and (4) (B) of the Act induced and encouraged
or attempted to induce or encourage Queen, an employee , to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal to handle goods to Brown Truck Company in order to force
Richfield to cease doing business with Superior Tank. It is so found..
O' Conley testified that he did "not recall Cation telling anything about a job for
Bell 'Oil Company" ; nor did he recall having said, with reference to Cation's alleged
contention as to the Bell property not being on Richfield or Superior Tank property, that
"it was too bad, but they happen to be on a road that went through Richfield properties
because it was picketed," Conley testified:
A. No, I don't remember it.
Q. Could you say that that conversation did not occur?
(Intervening objection overruled.)
The WITNrss. Not to my recollection.
,Inasmuch as there is no contention that the above alleged conversation took place in the
presence of any employee and since Cation was a management or employer representative,
Conley'g inducement or attempted inducement of Cation, if any, aimed at effectuating
a secondary work stoppage would not be a violation of any of the prohibitions of the Act.
See Arkansas Express, Inc., and Sealright Pacific, supra.
62 It may be assumed that the pickets surmised that Queen was a union member.
1216 DECISIONS ''OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) Forrest McGill testified substantially as follows : That he was employed by
E. A. Brown Trucking Company as a "pusher" (supervisor) ; that he had oc-
casion to be in Cuyama Valley on February 24; in passing Gate 10 noted pickets,
and, as he expected two loads of pipe to arrive shortly, he contacted the pickets
to find out whether his drivers could deliver the pipe. McGill testified :
I asked them what the deal was and told them that we did have pipe
coming in, and how about going through to deliver the pipe to the Richfield
rig, and they told me then when I asked if it would be all,right . . . they
asked if our drivers were A. F. L. members and I said, "Yes," and they said,-
Well, they wouldn't tell me whether we could go through or couldn't but
they didn't think our drivers would cross the picket line.
McGill further testified that he went to the union "shack" looking for some
men in a green car, one of whom was supposed to' be business agenf for the
Teamsters out of Santa Maria ; that he- found the car, it had two occupants; ,
and that he talked to • the one on the driver's side. He said that "he couldn't
tell us whether to go in or whether not to." According to McGill, he thereafter
made no further inquiry with reference to getting the trucks into the lease.
From the above it does not appear that insofar as McGill was concerned
or aware no efforts were made by the Respondents to induce or encourage em-
ployees. McGill, being a pusher or foreman, was not an employee but an em-
ployer under the Act ; Respondents' activities with respect to him cannot
constitute inducement of employees. It is so found 83
"Listing" of Picket Line Violators
Conley in the course of his testimony stated that as of February 24, prior
to the time Swoape trucks went through the picket line at Gate 10, all as
hereinabove set forth, the pickets were listing the names and numbers of all
trucks going through the picket line.
In his brief, the General Counsel entitles this action as "The listing of picket
line violators" and contends "This action of writing down names and numbers
is clearly an economic threat to the drivers," in violation of Section 8 (b) (1)
(A) of the Act.
The General Counsel cites H. M. Newman, 85 NLRB 725, which in no manner
can be applied to facts in the instant case.
From the General Counsel's statement above, one would conclude that pickets
were taking the names of the truck drivers. The record contains no such
testimony. Conley's statement, upon which General Counsel relies, makes no
reference to names of truck -drivers, but does refer to "names and numbers
of trucks."
W. F. Carlock, whose testimony is discussed in some detail elsewhere herein,
testified that he was employed by Richfield in a number of different capacities,
further testified that on February 25 he, while driving a vacuum truck, was
"flagged" down by pickets at Gate 9. He testified :
Q. Would you tell us what happened, what did you do as you came up
there?
A. Well, they flagged me down, the pickets, they flagged me down one of
them came over and asked me if I was A. F. of L. and I told him, "No."
He said, "Who do you work for," and I told him Richfield, and he said,
"Well," . .•. he said, "That is 0. K. then go on through." He [picket]
said that he didn't know any of the numbers on the truck or any identifi-
cation, and that was the reason he stopped me.
68 See Arkansas Express, Inc., supra.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ,BOILERMAKERS 1217
'Q. Did the picket tell you anything else besides that?
A. Not at that gate.
In the opinion of the undersigned, the Respondents by listing trucks by name
and number were attempting to identify employers Who, refused to honor Re-
spondents' picket line and not employees. None of the'truck driver witnesses
testified that any picket asked for their indii idual names; and it was and is no
violation of the Act to'induce and encourage or to attempt to induce and en-
courage employers by taking names and numbers of such employers' trucks, and
the General Counsel's contention set forth above is hereby found to be wholly
without merit.
The Everett Vaughan Incident
Vaughan, as a witness for the General Counsel, testified in substance that :
As an employee of the Potter Vacuum Truck Service he entered the Cuyama
Oil and Gas Field between 9 and 10: 30 a. in. on February 25, and in so
doing he entered the field on a county road which runs south from Highway
166 to the Plant 10 area of the oil field; there was no picket stationed at
the junction of said county road 84 when he turned right on the latter ; asi
he drove along on this county road he noted through his rear view mirror that
a car was following him ; and when he reached the "air strip" where it
is crossed by the county road, he moved his car to the right to permit the fol-
lowing car to pass.
According to Vaughan the driver of the other car got out of his car and asked
Vaughan where he was going. Vaughan testified that he replied that he was
going to pick up two lengths of 3-inch hose that he had "left up in the field" ;
whereupon, according to Vaughan, "The fellow told me I might get hurt, and
asked me if I had a union book or a union card." Vaughan said "No, I haven't"
and said he did have a letter concerning his joining a union; which he produced
and .handed to his alleged inquisitor, who looked it over and then said, "Do
you know you are liable to a one hundred dollar fine?" When Vaughan replied
in the negative, the other man said, "Well, my advice to you is to turn around
and go back and leave those hose up there." Vaughan testified that when -his
alleged admonisher turned his car about and left the field, Vaughan did like-
wise. Vaughan further testified:
Q. Do you know what that man you spoke to is?
A. No sir ; he said he was a union officer, that's all I know.
By Mr. GROnsxr :
Q. Have you seen that man here during your attendance at the sessions
here?
A. I wouldn't know, sir.
Q. You haven't recognized him?
A. No, Sir.
Q. Do you recall the kind of a car he was driving?
A. He was driving a '49 or '50 Nash-gray in color.
Q. Light gray?
A. Light gray.n
04 The record discloses at least three so-called county roads in the Cuyama Oil Field
exclusive of the main roads leading from Highway 166 to Plants 9 and 10.
cs As is found and discussed elsewhere herein other witnesses for the General Counsel
testified concerning a Nash car being seen on Highway 166 at or near Gates No. 9 and 10 ;
no witness identified the occupants of the Nash ; and one witness testified : "I thought it
was a Nash . ," and "It was a greenish color, I believe."
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vaughan was not asked, 'and did not attempt, to describe the man who allegedly'
accosted him on this occasion. While a number of witnesses for the General
Counsel testified that they saw a Nash car on the picket line, and that they
-were informed or heard that the Nash car contained union officials, there is
insufficient credible evidence in the record upon which to base a finding that
there were in fact any union officials who appeared on the picket line on either
February 24 or 25, riding in a Nash car ; and no evidence credible or otherwise
from which' it may be fairly inferred that the alleged Nash car occupants
-were members of or officers or agents for any of the Respondents herein. It
is so found. The record will not support a finding that the unknown and un-
identified individual referred to by Vaughan is or was an officer or agent of
Respondents or any of them. It is so found.
The Pumping Station Incident
The pumping station in question is located on the south side of Highway 166
about 1 mile east of Gate 10; it is undisputed that for a time at least on February
24 there was a picket stationed on the access road leading to the pump station ;
that also on February 24 a number of employees of ABC Construction, Company
(which company was constructing a pipeline along Highway 166) had occasion
to be working in or near the vicinity of the pump station, and refused to cross
the picket line on February 24.
Robert E. White, a junior engineer, was Richfield's inspector on the pipeline
construction, and testified that he saw a picket on the location in question on
February 24; that he did not visit the field on February 25 or 26, but did visit
it on Monday, February 27, at which time he testified that he again saw pickets
at the access road leading'into the pumping station.
Lee Galli, secretary of Laborers Local 1222, Santa Maria, testified that he
noted pickets at such location on February 24, at 8 a. in., and that the picket
was withdrawn within probably 2 hours. For reasons stated below the under-
signed deems it unnecessary to resolve this dispute as it is immaterial whether
the picket was stationed at this site for 2 hours or 3 days.
The General Counsel contends in effect that "there was no work going on at
this location for Superior," and thus a picket line was illegal.
This contention is without merit. The access road Which leads into the
pumping station continues on into the oil field and connects with. other and
meandering roads 68 which lead to all.sites where Superior had work. in the'
south Cuyama Field at the time pickets were placed.
Richfield and the General Counsel, in effect, contend that since Superior
Tank continued this work in Plant 10 area for some 72 hours 07 or less, any
picketing that took place during such time was illegal. For reasons set forth
below, the undersigned is of the opinion that Richfield's Cuyama oil and gas
holdings constitute a single project, and that the picketing of any highway or
access road leading into any portion of the oil and. gas field, under the circum-
60 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10, page 4. While the road which follows an oil field
pipeline may not be paved or highly developed, it is, nonetheless, one which is as near
or nearer to some wells as its Gate 10 road.
s7 While Richfield and Superior Tank contend that no work was performed by the latter
on February 24, 25, and 26 in the Plant 10 area, the record discloses that the major
portion of work to be done by Superior Tank was In Plant 10 area. Superior Tank
admittedly returned to Plant 10 area by February 27, but the record contains no evidence
that the Respondents were informed of this action. It is possible that Superior, Tank
may have worked in that area on February 25 and 26; and in any event it is clear that
a truck and equipment ready for installation remained in Plant 10 area from February 23
until the contract was completed.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1219
stance , constitutes legal primary picketing so long as Superior Tank was operat-
ing anywhere in the entire field. General Counsel's contention that Respondents
illegally picketed the access road;" leading from Highway 166 into and beyond
the South Cuyama -Pump Station, is without merit and it is so found.
General Counsel's Contentions as to Gate 10 Incident
The General Counsel contends that: (1) Richfield operations in the Cuyama
Valley comprise two separate and distinct oil and gas fields, sometimes known
as_North Cuyama and South Cuyaina Fields which are operated as separate
entities, to the extent that any operation or transaction had in either alleged
separate field: has, and can have, no relation to the other jointly ; and (2)',
notwithstanding Fluor Corporation had a single contract covering the installa-
tion of vapor recovery systems on wells located throughout the entire field, both
north and south, as a result of instructions from Richfield, Fluor tem-
porarily centered all activity' of installation of said vapor recovery systems in
the northern part of said field, with the result that Richfield and General
Counsel contend that picketing of roads or highways leading into the southern
portion of the Cuyama Valley Field, directed at Superior Tank, was in violation.
of the Act.
As to contention (1), the record discloses that oil and/or gas was discovered-
in the north part of the Cuyama Valley Field in 1948, and further discoveries
were made in the southern part of the field in 1949; that the oil and gas from both
portions of the field are transported in the same pipelines to pump stations
and hence by pipeline to Richfield's refinery at Watson, California, and to the
terminal at Long Beach, California. There is no evidence which indicates that -
Richfield operates the two. portions of the Cuyama Valley Field as separate
entities ; 6q the contrary appears to be true.
H. B. Smith, employed by Richfield, testified on direct examination that he was.
"Chief Clerk for the Northern Division," thus indicating that the northern divi-
sion was operated as a separate entity. On cross-examination, however, Smith
testified:
Q. Is your place of employment in Bakersfield or in the North Cuyama.
field?
A. My place of employment is.in Bakersfield.
Q. You are Chief Clerk in Bakersfield having charge of Bakersfield han--
dling of the affairs of the North Cuyama field , is that right?
A. Paperwork.
Q. And I suppose you have a counterpart in Bakersfield who does the
paper work for the South Cuyama field?
A. No ; they are all together.
Q. You do the work for both fields?
A. Well, I am in charge of the paper work for all the Northern Division
including all of the Bakersfield area and the Cuyama Valley. [Emphasis
added.]
A. H. Smith , an employee of Richfield , testified in substance and effect that
he had been so employed for 15 years , the last 4 or 5' years of which he has.
88 See Ryan Construction Corporation , 85 NLRB 417.
66 A scale map contained in the Annual Report of Richfield for 1949, in .. evidence as
- General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 1,0, purporting to cover the field is entitled :
MAP SHOWING CUYAMA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT BY RICHFIELD OIL CORP.
This map shows more details than does the one separately introduced in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3.
961974-52-vol. 95-78
1220 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been general construction foreman ; that on February 24, the day the picketing
began, he had occasion to go through Gate 9 and on into the Russell Ranch area
from where he started his "crews out" ; that thereafter he returned to Highway
166 via Gate 9 and turned east on Highway 166 until he came to a county road
located between Plants 9 and 10;° and turned right on said county road and
"went south on that road back through the field" Smith further stated :
I made my rounds on the jobs that I had assigned my crews and, came
back out by Plant 10 and came down the road and came back to the gate
that you have been referring to as Plant 10 gate.71
As to contention (2) wherein the General Counsel contends in effect that
picketing at Gate 10 was in violation of the 8 (b) (4) (A) and (4) (B) of the
Act, and in the last analysis relies on the Board's decision in Sterling Beverages,
Inc., 90 NLRB 401, and inferentially contends that the facts in the instant cases
put the latter "on all fours", with Sterling Beverages, Inc. The undisputed
facts disclose such contention to be without merit and disclose rather that the
facts in the instant case bring it clearly within the rule laid down in Schultz
Refrigerated Service, Inc., 87 NLRB 502.
The credible evidence discloses the facts to be substantially" as follows :
After the contacts between Smedley and Vaughan of Superior Tank ; the
contacts between Smedley and Kelley of Richfield ; the contacts between Black-
well and Conley with Kelley ; and the telephone conversations between Smedley
and Guntert as Richfield Counsel on February 23 all as found and referred
to herein before, the Respondents determined to proceed with the picket line
on the following day, February 24.
On February 22 or 23, Kelley instructed Vaughan of Superior Tank to
discontinue work in the Plant 10 area and move all of his crews to Plant 9
area. Vaughan worked his crews in Plant 10 area until noon February 23;
the picket line was set up at about 7 a. in. February 24; Superior Tank re-
frained from doing any work on February 24 and kept its crews at the Trailer
Camp in the town of Cuyama located about 4 miles east of Gate 10.
On State Highway 166 pickets were stationed at Gates 9 and 10 and at the
entrance to the South Cuyama Pump station P8 on February 25, Superior Tank
renewed its operations in the Plant 9 area, and on February 26 or 27 resumed
its operations in Plant 10.area; and at the time operations were halted at noon
on February 23 in the Plant 10 area, Superior had certain material on the
ground ready for installation (and a truck) which left there for subsequent
installation. It is undisputed that all work contracted to be performed by
70 According to the scale map contained in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10 (Richfield
Annual Report 1949) the said county road is about 2% miles southeast of the Russell
Ranch Punrp Station at a point where said county road leaves Highway 166, and about
1% miles northeast of the entrance to the South Cuyama Pump Station on Highway 166.
71 A. H. Smith's testimony indicates that while he first entered the field on this occasion
through Gate 9, he later reentered the field at a point south of the Russell Ranch Pump
Station and ended up by reaching Highway 166 by way of Gate 10, after making his
rounds of jobs to which he bad assigned crews. All of which is indication of the fact
that Richfield operates its Cuyama Valley Oil and Gas Field as one entity.
72 There is a dispute as to whether Blackwell of the Boilermakers Lodge 62 was informed
by Winn or Fluor Corporation on February 23 that Superior Tank was to move from
the entire Cuyama Field or only from the Plant.10 area, as was contended by Richfield.
For the purpose of the instant statement of facts it will be assumed arguendo that the
Richfield version is the correct one.
71 There is testimony that some five or six other pickets were stationed at different
points along Highway 166 , but no witnesses testified concerning these "other" pickets or
their activities.
INTERNATIONAL": BROTHERHOOD OF -BOILERMAKERS 1221
Superior Tank was covered. by one contract, which covered the entire Cuyama
Valley field where such work was deemed necessary or advisable.
In connection with work performed or to be performed under the Superior
Tank contract, Carl Herrell, divisional manager , Bakersfield Branch for Superior
Tank, testified, in part, as follows :
Q. Those [wells] you didn't work on the 23rd [plant 10 area], you left
your equipment there near by to continue work, didn't you?
A. We left, some equipment there, yes.
Q. Now, -when you claimed you discontinued- work on the 23rd, did you
take any material off these various [well] sites which had been erected
into place on those sites?
A. That I do not recall. -
Q.' You don't recall taking anything away that had already been erected,
then, do you?
A. No.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, when you claim you discontinued work on
the 23rd, you didn't take any material away which was on the site ready to be
erected into your installation, did you?
A. No, we did not.
Q. That was all left there ready to work on?
A. Right.
Q. What equipment did you still have remaining in the South Cuyama
field at that time? By that time, I mean the 25th.
A. The supplies and I think one truck setting at the dog house. I am
not positive of that because I never made any mental note of it.
* * * * * * *
Herrell further testified that on February 26 or 27 President Timmons of
Superior Tank, by telephone, instructed him to move the men back into Plant 10
area for the reason that .
We have a contract to fulfill and we were to complete all jobs for Richfield
'Oil Company.74
That the Cuyama Field was considered and treated as "one field" is further
disclosed by Herrell's testimony, as follows : -
Q. Mr. Herrell, don't you keep a record of the man-hours per day expended
on each of the days for cost purposes?
A. Not in this particular case because it was a bid, and that is what we
call a one work order number, and we had no reason to keep accurate accounts
of each job. So, they: were all the time, tickets-all the time tickets were
charged to the-same work order number. [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions
As to contention (1), it is clear and the undersigned finds that Richfield oper-
ates its oil and gas interest in the Cuyama Valley as a single project or entity ;
and that if there are any exceptions not disclosed by the record, they did not or
74 From the above it should be noted that , notwithstanding Richfield 's contention that
Superior Tank was. supposed to discontinue operations in Plant 10 area, according to
information relayed to Respondents by Kelly, Timmons issued orders that the work be
continued and completed pursuant to the time and specifications of the contract.
1222 DECISIONS--OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARIJ
do not include such portion of the entire Cuy ama . Field as were covered or
included in the Superior Tank contract with Richfield.
As to contention (2), it is clear and the undersigned finds that Superior Tank's
said contract embraced the entire Cuyama Valley Oil and Gas Field. and the.
picketing was limited to times when the sites of the dispute was, located ont
Richfield's, the secondary employer's, premises."
While under Richfield's and the General Counsel's version of the facts no,
manual labor was performed on certain wells, it is undisputed that a truck and.
supplies for installation were assembled at the wells in question, and remained
there at all times during the picketing. Even absent the presence of the truck
and supplies referred to, the undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the-
picketing of any entrance to the Cuyama Valley Oil Field, under the circum--
stances, and while Superior Tank was engaged in any portion of the field in
performing its contract constituted the picketing, strictly limited to times when
the sites of dispute was located on the secondary employers' premises ; 79 there
Is no question that Superior Tank was engaged in its normal business at the
sites; the picketing was limited to places reasonably close to the location of the-
'situs ; P7 and the picketing clearly disclosed that the dispute was with the:
primary employer, Superior Tank.
3. Concluding findings
As to all facts found under Section III A 1, above, it should be noted that
facts have to do with matters and events occurring between the Respondents
or their officials and authorized agents on the one hand and employers and/or
their officials and authorized agents on the other hand. No rank-and-file em-
ployees were or are involved in the findings of this section. The inducement
of such employers, their officials, or agents and the individuals comprising these
groups, if inducement, in fact, occurred, was inducement of management person-
nel or secondary employers, rather than employees within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (4) (B)'.
Regardless of what was said to them, Respondent's activities as to them can--
'not constitute inducement of employees.78 It is so found.
As Section III A 2 covering the picket line, incidents at Gate. 9,. and Gate 10,.
the Everett Vaughan incident, and the pumping station incident, the under-
signed has made separate findings and conclusions as to each. From the find-
ings and conclusions thus made it is evident that the picketing in the instant
case was clearly primary under the rule laid down by the Board in Moore Dry
Dock Company (Sailors' Union of-the Pacific, AFL),' wherein the Board held.
that picketing of the premises of a secondary employer is primary if it meets
the following conditions :
(a) The picketing is strictly limited to, times when the situs of dispute' is
located on the secondary employer's premises ; (b) at the time of the picketing
75 The fact that Richfield may have, for some 72 hours, discontinued actual manual
operations in the vicinity of Plant 10, but continued operations elsewhere in the field did_
not make the picketing of Gate 10 illegal as Gate 10 was an entrance to the whole field,
and one of the limited number of roads by which the field could 'be reached.
70 The facts in the instant case distinguish it from Sterling Beverages, Inc., 90 NLRB 401,.
since the primary employer, Superior Tank, was operating and present in the oil field at
all times when Respondents' pickets were on the picket line.
77 Since it appears that other than State Highway 166 and a county road, there were
no roads into and throughout the oil field, except private' roads (the picketing -of - whicht
might have amounted to illegal trespass), the Respondents of necessity had to base their
pickets on Highway 166 at places where private roads lead into the oil and, gas field.
78 See Arkansas Express, Inc., supra. ' . '
10 92 NLRB 547.
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY, INC. 1223
the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the
picketing is limited to places reasonably close. to the location of the situs; and
(d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.
As to (a) : During the entire picketing Superior Tank was engaged in install-
ing vapor recovery systems on some 14 wells situated through the entire- Cuyama
Valley'Oil'Field.
As to (b) ; Under its contract with Richfield, agreed to furnish and install the
recovery systems referred to in (a) next above and finished such installment with-
in the time limit specified in its contract, notwithstanding it had to abandon.its
plan to discontinue such installation in Plant 10 area, a plan conceived and
ordered by Richfield as a strategic move to induce Respondents not to establish
the picket line.
As to (c) : The record discloses that Respondents limited the picketing to
places not only reasonably close to the location of the. situs, but placed the
picketing lines as close to the situs as was possible without trespassing upon
private property.
As to (d) : By its picketing, its statements, and by its constant display of
picket signs Respondents made it clear that only Superior Tank was unfair to the
Respondents.
The record discloses that the picketing was at all times peaceful with no evi-
dence or suggestion of threats or violence and not to exceed two pickets on duty
at the same time.
From the foregoing and upon.the entire record it appears 'that the General
Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving any of the material allega-
tions of the complaint. It will be recommended below that the complaint be'
dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Richfield Oil Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning: of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents : International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship-
builders and Helpers of America, Subordinate Lodge No. 92; United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, A. F. L., Local No. 460; Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties
of California Building and Construction Trades Council, A. F., L. ; and Building
and Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County, California, A. F. L.,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondents Shave not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (4) (A), and (4) (B) of the Act, as alleged
in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 381, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case NO.
15-CA-314 . August 21, 19.51
Decision and Order
On March 14, 1951, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
95 NLRB No. 167.