Santa Fe Drilling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 3, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SANTA FE DRILLING CO. 1049
Santa Fe Drilling Company and Alaska Petroleum
Crafts Council and International Union of
Petroleum Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases
19-CA-3324- 1, 19-CA-3328, 19-CA-3470,
19-RC-3851, and l9-RM-598
February 3, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On May 2, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threats and
coercive statements to employees, and Section
8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily discharging
employees because of their union activity. The
Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and to
reinstate and make whole the employees
discriminatorily discharged or laid off. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed a petition for review of the
order of the National Labor Relations Board with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and the Board filed a cross-petition for
enforcement of its Order. The court enforced the
Board's Order except as to Barefield. With respect
to Barefield, the court remanded the case to the
Board for its determination as to whether or not to
draw the inference from the record that Supervisor
Roady who discharged Barefield knew of Barefield's
union activities and that Barefield's discharge was
based upon such union activities.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
In accordance with the court's remand, we have
reexamined the record of the hearing held before
Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin, the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the exceptions of the
parties thereto and the accompanying briefs, and
our prior Decision. We reaffirm our adoption of the
Trial Examiner's finding that Barefield was
discriminatorily discharged and our order that the
Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
As the court noted in its decision, the essential
'171 NLRB No 27.
'Santa Fe Drilling Company v N L R B, 416 F 2d 725 (C A. 9)
facts are not in dispute. Barefield was employed as a
roughneck or pit watcher in December 1965,
working on Driller Olds' crew. On June 9, 1966, the
power was shut down on the platform on which
Barefield was working. Driller Olds told Barefield
and other members of his crew to do as much
painting and scraping as possible. Supervisors
Roady and Olds soon thereafter found Barefield in
the mud loggers shack reading a magazine. Roady
discharged Barefield on the spot. The Trial
Examiner conceded that Barefield's conduct could
have furnished ample cause for discharge. However,
he found substantial evidence warranting the finding
that Barefield's discharge was for discriminatory
purposes. In arriving at his finding the Trial
Examiner took into consideration the Respondent's
conduct constituting interference, restraint, and
coercion, Supervisors Blair 's and Roady's remarks
to Barefield and other employees, Barefield's long
work experience and satisfactory prior employment
record, the absence of evidence that he had been
previously disciplined, the dearth of qualified oilfield
personnel, and the precipitate manner in which
Barefield was discharged.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent discharged Barefield because of his
union adherence and activities and not because of
the purported reason of loitering in the loggers'
shack to escape doing maintenance work on the
platform during the power shutdown. Upon
reexamination of the record evidence in this case, we
conclude that the Respondent, including Supervisor
Roady, had knowledge of Barefield' s union
adherence and activities at the time. In so finding
we rely particularly on the following: (1) Barefield's
uncontradicted testimony that he informed
Supervisor Blair of his support of the Union prior to
his discharge; (2) about the same time, Roady
advised Barefield that a union was not necessary
and "you [have] got a good job;" (3) a few hours
after the Union had won the election, Roady told a
small group of employees, including Barefield, who
were in the recreation room, "All right you sons of
bitches, you voted for this union. From now on one
man will go after coffee and there won't be no other
breaks. You will work from 6:00 to 6:00," and,
"You will have lunch with one glove off."; and (4) a
few days later, Blair told Barefield and Gardner
(who was later discriminatorily discharged), after
castigating those who voted for the Union, "I am
going to run every [god] damned one of you off,"
adding, "And you two are going to be first."
Moreover, we find in the circumstances here that
Respondent's knowledge, including Supervisor
Roady's, of Barefield's union activities may be
inferred from the small size of the work force and
the nature of the off-shore oil drilling operation. We
find significant that the Respondent's drilling
operations are conducted on a 24-hour basis by
three drilling crews, each working a 12-hour tour of
duty, 10 days on and 5 days off duty. Each crew
180 NLRB No. 160
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consists of approximately seven employees plus
supervisors. Both the employees and the supervisors
live and work together in close quarters on the
drilling platform off-shore during the 10-day periods
they are on duty. Clearly, in these circumstances, it
is reasonable to infer that little in the way of union
activity or sympathy on the part of any employee
escaped the notice of the supervisors, including
Roady.
Accordingly, we infer and find that Roady knew
of Barefield's union activities and that his discharge
was based upon such union activities.