Marathon Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 11, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 365 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

MARATHON OIL CO 365 Marathon Oil Company and Local 135 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men and Helpers of America . Case 25-CA-4213 Upon the record and from my observation of the witnesses I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT February 11, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On October 13, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saun- ders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a support- ing brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Marathon Oil Company, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's recommended Order. We note and correct the following minor error in that section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "Findings of Fact," which in no way affects the result in this case The Trial Examiner correctly found that McIntire was engaged in protected activity when he discussed with his fellow employees the possibility of notifying the state police about the Employer's admitted overloading of its trucks, but inadvertently stated that the bringing of a complaint or grievance to the attention of public authorities is in all cases a protected activity, incorrectly citing Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc, 137 NLRB 1317. In that case the Board held that writing a letter to the state health department complaining of unsanitary conditions is a protected activity if it is a concerted effort and the employer has knowl- edge of the concerted nature of the activity TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner. On March 16, 1971,' Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein the Union, filed a charge alleging that Marathon Oil Company, herein the Company or Respondent, had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Both the General Counsel and the Company filed briefs.' All dates are 1971 unless specifically stated otherwise The following named persons occupied positions set opposite their names , and have been and are now agents of the Respondent and are supervisors within the meaning of the Act Richard Hermon terminal supervisor at Muncie Jack Holmes central area manager , terminal I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a corporation with a place of business at Muncie, Indiana. It is engaged in the business of transport- ing and marketing petroleum products. During the past 12 months the Company shipped from its facility products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Indiana. During the same representative period the business purchased, transferred, and had delivered to its facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were trans- ported to said facility directly from States other than the State of Indiana. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union named in the caption of this Decision is a labor organization under the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that the Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Richard McIntire on March 8 because of his union and/or concerted activities. McIntire became an employee of the Company in 1968. He was a transport driver out of the Company's Muncie terminal, the sole facility involved, and on March 8 was informed of his discharge because of "behav- ior prejudicial to the company." The General Counsel introduced background testimony showing that McIntire was active for the Union in the fall of 1969. At this time he inquired of a union representative about the possibilities of organizing the Respondent's drivers at the Muncie facility, signed an authorization card and obtained cards for other drivers, and also gave his assistance in arrang- ing for a union meeting. On October 10, 1969, an RC petition was filed (25-RC-4216) for a unit of nine drivers. Further background testimony by McIntire shows that within a few weeks prior to the November 1969 Board election, he told Terminal Supervisor Richard Hermon that while he had not started the organizing campaign, he believed in the Union and was "for it." McIntire then made the observation that management was probably on Hermon's "back" about the Union. Hermon replied- "You bet they are. Mr. Moorehead has been on the phone wanting to know what's the matter with my supervision, that we've got a Union drive going on down here." Hermon then asked McIntire if he had signed a card, and, after admitting he had, Hermon told McIntire they thought the Union was trying "to push their way in" because many drivers were on withdrawal cards. Hermon admitted that in the fall of 1969 McIntire had told him that he felt the employees needed a union for security purposes and Hermon also admitted he knew McIntire had a Teamster withdrawal card. At the Board election on November 6, 1969, the Union lost by a vote of 6 to 3. Union Business Representative John Neal stated that in the latter part of 1970, McIntire again demonstrated some inter- est in the Union by inquiring about cards, but Neal informed Adrian Moorehead transport manager, terminal and transport de- partment-marketing operations division 195 NLRB No. 70 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him it would be premature in that 1 year had not yet passed since the first election. McIntire's renewed and current interest in the Union started in January, when according to McIntire some of the major oil companies gave a 55-cent increase to their em- ployees while drivers for the Respondent merely received a 38-cent wage increase, and, thus, McIntire once again started talking about the Union and card signing with other drivers at the Muncie terminal. He told several of them they had made a mistake in 1969 by not getting the Union in when they had a chance to do so. On February 18, the Company held one of its quarterly safety meetings which all the Muncie drivers attended- along with Richard Hermon, Jack Holmes, Terminal Dis- patcher John Whitsett, and Personnel Supervisor Battershall. During some stage of the meeting a discussion took place relative to the Respondent's hospitalization insurance, and McIntire mentioned the fact that he recently had a growth removed from his chest and the coverage afforded by the Respondent's hospitalization insurance was only sufficient to pay $16 out of a $24 total cost. Holmes replied that the medical insurance benefits by the Company were designed to reduce burdensome costs in cases of major illness, but McIn- tire then stated that if the employees "had Teamster insur- ance that it would pay for such things as eyeglasses and dental care." Holmes again spoke up and said that if medical plans and coverages were going to be compared, they should go further and compare all of the benefits. Holmes or Battershall went into an explanation detailing other aspects of their total benefit plans, and concluded by asking McIntire if the Team- sters had a thrift plan, sick day allowances, and other matters of this nature. McIntire made a reply to this inquiry and then posed the question himself as to why transport drivers repre- sented by the Teamsters had received a 55-cent raise while the Respondent's drivers had only gotten a 38-cent raise. Holmes said the Company felt its drivers were receiving a fair wage, but that if McIntire wanted to make that kind of money he should go to work for Texaco.3 This record shows that some of the drivers were also con- cerned about the heavy loads they were frequently hauling. In fact, on or about February 22, McIntire was helping driver Buchanan change a tire on his truck as earlier he had encoun- tered two tire failures, and as a result Buchanan made the remarks that "if we're going to haul these kinds of loads they're going to have to put some tires on these trailers." McIntire then suggested they should call the police if the heavy loads were continued, and McIntire further testified he also had several previous discussions with Buchanan and other drivers at the Muncie terminal about this matter." Around this time in February, four of the drivers were at the terminal along with Hermon and Whitsett when driver Fred Robbins told them he heard the "new safety man" was going to run the drivers "by the book." Buchanan acknowl- edged this was a good idea and said "we won't have to haul any more overweight loads then," to which Hermon an- swered "and we don't have to keep you on the payroll either." McIntire testified that during discussions with other driv- ers in February and early March he sought to find out once again their feelings about the Union and asked two drivers if they would sign cards. He told drivers that if they were ' Driver James Buchanan is in substantial agreement with McIntire as to events and statements at the meeting on February 18. Holmes and Hermon admitted that McIntire had inquired about company and union wages at this meeting Buchanan corroborated his discussion with McIntire relative to calling the police and the fact that he did not believe the tires were adequate for the loads represented by a union the employees would have an agent when the question of wages came up and they would not have to accept what the Company offered. On March 3, McIntire informed Hermon that he would not haul any more overweight loads, and if any loads were dispatched "illegally" he would call the State Police. Hermon said he had been expecting this and asked why he didn't quit. About this time drivers Buchanan and Strong came in and McIntire informed them they were not going to haul any more illegal loads, and then told Hermon "If you want to fire me for refusing to haul illegal loads then fire me." Hermon inquired when he was going to call the police, and McIntire replied that he would call them the next day if he was "dis- patched illegally." On the next day McIntire went out with a "legal load." Hermon then called Holmes and reported to him what had taken place. In his testimony Holmes classified McIntire's conduct and statement as "the straw that broke the camel's back," and testified he recommended to Adrian Moorehead, his superior, that McIntire be discharged be- cause he had been a "chronic bitcher" ever since he had been with the Company. However, before acting on his recommen- dation, Moorehead asked Holmes to give him a list of all the difficulties McIntire had been involved in, and during the next few days there were numerous conversations back and forth between Moorehead and Holmes supposedly in at- tempts to collect the information Moorehead had asked for. Other people in management and those representing the Company were also brought into the picture and in these respects Moorehead testified as follows: Either on Thursday or Friday, and I don't remember exactly at the present time, we had a joint phone conver- sation, and I believe at the time we had Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hermon and my superior, Mr. Ballinger, and I be- lieve you [Cavender] and Mr. Leatherman were present, and we were all trying to evaluate the seriousness of the situation as to whether everything had been pursued to be absolutely sure that there was no injustice being given in the decision that we were apparently arriving at. And at that particular time we asked Mr. Hermon specifically if he felt that there was any advantage to trying to make further effort to rehabilitate the employee in question. And we also asked Mr. Holmes if he concurred in the opinion of Mr. Hermon. And it seemed to me from the recommendations made to us at that time that we had gone as far as we could go in trying to make a satisfac- tory employee out of McIntire.' The factual sequence of events as continued shows that on Monday morning, March 8, Holmes and Moorehead had another phone conversation about McIntire in which the decision was made to discharge him. Moorehead told Holmes to have Hermon instruct McIntire to be at the terminal on Tuesday morning when Holmes would discharge him. It was also decided that there was a need for a special meeting of the drivers on March 9 to elaborate on some questions asked at the February 18 meeting and to tell the other drivers the reason for discharging McIntire. In accordance with these plans Hermon telephoned McIntire, but McIntire refused to meet Holmes the next morning, saying he would come in the ' Moorehead testified that it is a rarity for the Company to discharge anyone, and because of this fact it is standard procedure for him to become involved when discharges are made, and the same applies with equal validity to his superior The General Counsel argues it is inconceivable that an official of such widespread duties as Moorehead would be so involved in Mclntire's discharge were he not discharged for his union activities and then points out that Moorehead himself gave the answer when he testified that management wanted to be certain their action could not be misconstrued to where it had a reference to union activities MARATHON OIL CO. 367 afternoon and that Holmes could speak to him in front of other drivers. Holmes then telephoned McIntire later on Monday afternoon and advised him that he was discharged, and shortly thereafter McIntire received a telegram advising of the discharge.' The General Counsel points out the fact that McIntire was genuinely convinced the Respondent's drivers were continu- ally hauling overweight loads and engaged in concerted ac- tivity when he talked with other drivers about his dissatisfac- tion over this matter as to whether they should continue hauling such overloads.' In sum, the General Counsel argues that overweight loads and threats to call the State Police if they continued constituted protected concerted activity, and by McIntire's intended action he would have brought his concern for these working conditions to the attention of pub- lic authorities. Respondent maintains that McIntire was a "chronic griper," that his constant complaints were without construc- tive meet or intent, that on several occasions he alienated customers, and that his demeanor could only be described as "gross insubordination ," and, therefore, the Company had good and just cause for terminating him. The Company fur- ther points out that an employer must know, or have reason to know, that an employee is engaged in a protected activity before he can be found guilty of an unfair labor practice regarding same. Dispatcher John Whitsett stated that McIntire was a con- tinuing problem to him in that he constantly complained about the method used in assigning overtime, he complained about regulations pertaining to the locking and unlocking of gates, and he did not like a safety regulation which required drivers to stand by the meter when their trucks were being loaded. Whitsett also detailed an argument he and McIntire got into during the summer of 1970 which McIntire had reported to Hermon, thereby, according to Whitsett, trying to "alienate him in Hermon's eyes." Whitsett said they then agreed to work together and afterwards "got along fairly well." Holmes said that in the quarterly safety meeting manage- ment had with drivers, McIntire did not present constructive criticism, but "always just bitching," and in the last meeting his inquiry was about why the Company did not give the drivers a larger increase in pay. Holmes reiterated some of the complaints against McIntire mentioned by Whitsett and said he had been informed by Hermon that McIntire had com- plained about "illegal loads." ' By Holmes' admission the employees were dissatisfied over answers at the February 18 meeting so it was decided to hold this special meeting The General Counsel maintains that the Respondent wanted to hold the meeting without the presence of McIntire , and to assure that he did not appear at the meeting he was sent the discharge telegram which also revoked his invitation to the meeting ' Indiana statutes pertaining to trucks of the type used by the Company permit a maximum weight of 72,000 pounds with a grace weight of 1,000 pounds McIntire testified he and other drivers were frequently dispatched with loads of 86,000 pounds. He also stated that since February, 1970, the trucks had sustained more tire failures and broken springs McIntire said that in the summer of 1970 he had an occasion to weigh his truck and found out it weighed 86,000 pounds and he even gave Hermon a written slip on this A compilation of dispatch sheets introduced as exhibits reveal that, from early 1970 until his discharge, McIntire hauled overweight loads most of the time, with many of his loads excessively heavy This record shows that drivers Buchanan, McKinley, and possibly others also voiced their concern in various ways about overloads. McKinley spoke to a deputy sheriff and inquired if they weighed trucks, and McIntire testified that a few weeks prior to his discharge he had a friend contact a policeman about overloads who was willing to listen to McIntire about this problem Hermon related a few incidents regarding customer com- plaints about McIntire. He stated that at the Elwood station in 1969 certain threats were made and later he was told not to have McIntire make any more deliveries to this station. He testified that at the New Castle station there was an overflow venting problem because of filling the tanks too rapidly and words were then exchanged between McIntire and someone at the station. Hermon further said that Respondent's agent at Converse reported to him that McIntire had refused to unload into tanks as so directed by the agent. Hermon clas- sified the argument between McIntire and Whitsett in the summer of 1970, as aforestated, as the "most serious confron- tation." On the other hand the Company readily admits that McIntire was a very good driver, and, in fact, Hermon con- sidered him to be an "A-l" driver, and he thought McIntire also did an outstanding job when he worked as a relief dis- patcher for several weeks during the summer of 1970. More- over, Hermon recommended McIntire for the job of driver trainer. As further detailed Holmes had also recommended McIntire for promotion to driver trainer and admitted this job is an advancement toward becoming a terminal super- visor. It is well settled that an employer can discharge an em- ployee for good reason, bad reason, or none at all, provided a motive is not his union or concerted activity. Moreover, Section 7 of the Act does not protect all forms of concerted activity, such as those that are unlawful, violent, in breach of an existing contract, or defensible to the extent that they display a disloyalty to the employer which is not necessary to protect or carry on legitimate concerted activities of the workers.' McIntire's dissatisfaction and complaints about the differ- ences in increases of rates of pay between union and company drivers, the starting times, medical insurance coverages, holi- day scheduling, and his numerous complaints about over- weight loads-all clearly constitute protected concerted ac- tivity. The main thrust of this case, and at the center of the controversy, is, of course, McIntire's complaints on the mat- ter of overloads. Holmes admitted, when he heard from Her- mon on March 3 that McIntire had threatened to call the State Police if required to haul any more overweight loads, that this was the "straw that broke the camel's back," and therefore this was clearly a motivating cause in McIntire's discharge. This record reveals that McIntire had a serious and legiti- mate concern with the continual hauling of loads over the statutory weight limits which were causing some dangerous conditions. Management was then advised by McIntire that unless this practice was discontinued he would go further and carry his complaints to the highway police-the State regula- tory agency which has the responsibility for enforcement of the motor vehicle laws, and it has long been recognized that bringing a complaint or a grievance to the attention of public authorities is also protected activity. See Walls Manufactur- ing Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1317. As indicated previously herein McIntire's statement that he would complain to the police about overloads was not voiced until it had been discussed several times with other drivers and management , and, therefore, the assertion by Holmes that McIntire was always bringing up something "out of the blue" does not warrant full credence in this situa- tion. As pointed out, it was only after receiving clear indica- tions of negative reactions that McIntire declared his inten- tions bringing the matter of illegal overloads to the police. ' N.L.R B v Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U.S. 9, 17, and cases cited therein 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the trial before me the Company in no way attempted to hide the fact that their trucks do haul loads which exceed the weight limits , and I presume this position was intended to show that due to such circumstances the Company did not consider the overload complaints by McIntire to be of any serious consequences or importance. However, prior to the activities of McIntire there are no indications that anyone had mentioned police contacts or intervention if the practice continued. Because of McIntire' s legitimate and authentic concern about the overloads, his activities in respect thereto cannot in any way be classified as merely a personal whim, nor can it be said that he was only acting in his own behalf. This record continually reflects that the main object of his pursuits was to induce and initiate action in the interest of the employees, and even if some of his calculations or information were inaccurate, the Board has held that employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if, in voicing their dissatisfaction with matters of common concern, they give currency to inac- curate information, provided that it is not deliberately or maliciously false. Finally, it cannot be successfully argued that McIntire engaged in acts of insubordination or disloyalty to forfeit protection of the Act when his efforts were directed toward recognition and compliance with the motor vehicle laws-at no time did he ever ask employees to disobey load assignments which were within the legal weight restrictions. The position by the General Counsel that McIntire's dis- charge also resulted from his union activities-receives con- siderable support from various statements at the February 18 safety meeting . McIntire specifically mentioned and referred to the Teamsters medical insurance and then openly com- pared its benefits to the limited coverage aspects under certain provisions of the Respondent's insurance program, and these comments and attitude provoked immediate rebuttal and counterarguments by management. At this same meeting McIntire brought up the differences in recent pay increases between them and the drivers represented by the Union, as detailed earlier herein. With these remarks and questions the company supervisors gained immediate knowledge that McIntire was still favorably disposed on behalf of the Union and was again actively supporting it.' Moreover, during late February and in the first week in March, McIntire was still continuing his efforts and once again was contacting drivers at the terminal in attempts to rekindle their interest in the Union, and under the Board's "small plant doctrine" it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent also had knowledge of this activity and which activity immediately preceded his discharge. The General Counsel presents a convincing argument that, while Whitsett and Holmes maintained that McIntire had been "a problem" for quite some time and even since his initial employment 3 years ago, it was not until after the safety meeting on February 18, when he spoke out as an advocate of the Union in references to wages and other work- ing conditions and after his insistance on March 3 of calling the police unless overloads were stopped, that his conduct suddenly became intolerable. The incidents involving customer complaints, mentioned previously herein, appear to be somewhat normal happenings in this type of hauling operation (other drivers have had their Hermon admitted in his testimony he had knowledge of McIntire's extensive activities for the Union in 1969, and, of course , it is well-recog- nized Board law that background evidence may be considered to "shed light" on events within the 10(b) period In these respects it should be remembered that in 1969 Moorehead had expressed his concern over the fact that the Muncie terminal was then entangled in an organizational at- tempt by the Union troubles also) and certainly McIntire's difficulties never reached such seriousness to warrant any adverse considera- tions and, regardless of them, the Company still thought very highly of McIntire as a driver. In fact, it seems to me that any happenings which might adversely reflect on McIntire's work habits must be regarded with considerable doubt as McIntire was once again asked to be the terminal dispatcher during the summer weeks of 1971. I question whether such a responsible job, even though temporary, would be offered to a man who supposedly was continually insubordinate and a chronic griper. Obviously, the Respondent's representatives in man- agement thought very highly of him and were again willing to afford him opportunities in gaining experience for future advancements. I find that McIntire's concerted and union activities were a significant factor in Respondent's decision to discharge him, and thereby he was discriminated against in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and the free flow thereof. V THE REMEDY In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take such affirmative action as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the findings of discriminatory discharge of employee Richard McIntire it will be recommended that the Company be required to offer him immediate and full rein- statement to his former or a substantially equivalent position and make him whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the remedial relief policies of F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716. In view of the findings of discriminatory dis- charge the cease-and-desist provisions hereof should be ap- propriately broad. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of em- ployment of Richard McIntire by discharging him on March 8, 1971, because of his concerted and union activities, Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- lowing recommended:'° 10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the (Cont) MARATHON OIL CO. ORDER Marathon Oil Company , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or support of the Union or any other labor organization of its employees by discharg- ing or otherwise discriminating against them with respect to hire , tenure, or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Richard McIntire immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position with- out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for loss of earnings in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify immediately the above -named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement , upon application after dis- charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Preserve and upon request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records , timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze and give effect to the backpay requirements hereof. (d) Post at its Muncie terminal copies of the notice at- tached hereto and marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said no- tice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, shall after being duly signed by an authorized representa- tive of the Company be posted by it immediately on receipt and maintained by the Company for a period of 60 consecu- tive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasona- ble steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure that said notices are not altered , defaced or covered by other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes " In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR- DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " 369 within 20 days from receipt of this Decision what steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof 12 " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify our employees that- WE WILL OFFER Richard McIntire immediate and full reinstatement to his former or an equivalent job and make him whole for loss of pay resulting from our dis- crimination against him. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above- named or any other union by discharging or discriminat- ing against employees. WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or dis- criminate in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment because they have engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. MARATHON OIL COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) WE WILL notify immediately the above-named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis- charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633- 8921.