Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of . STANDARD OIL COMPANY, S TANDARD OIL COMPANY OF
NEW JERSEY and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C_ 2160.=Decided August 12, 19.4,2
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Companij-Dominated Unions: domination after effective date of Act of "Plan",
in existence from 1918 to 1937, which was admittedly initiated and furnished
support by the respondents-"Associations" which succeeded "Plan" held like-
wise dominated when they were in effect, merely minor revisions of the "Plan",
and when the respondents did not disestablish the "Plan" and did not make the
requisite "change" or "line of fracture" between the "Plan" and the "Associa-
tion"; other incidental assistance to the "Associations".
Remedial . Orders : employers ordered. to cease and desist unfair labor practices
and to cease and desist from giving effect to contracts with dominated unions,
dominated unions ordered disestablished.
Definitions : held: that the relationship between the respondents was such, and
• .the officials of the parent company had so acted, as to constitute the parent
company an "employer".
Practice and Procedure : dismissal of earlier charges by the. Regional Director,
after investigation but without the issuance of a complaint, held not to constitute
an adjudication on the merits and not to bar the Board from proceeding
further.
Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board,...
Mr. William' A. Dougherty, of New York City, for Standard Oil
Company.
.Mr. Luke W. Finlay, and Mr. C. Horace Tuttle, of New York City,
for Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Harry D. Field, of Jersey City, N. J., for Bayonne Association.
Mr. Horace A. Teass, of New York City, for Bayway Association:,
Mr. John C. Flanigan, and Mr. Dominric J. Hart, of Jersey City, N. J:;
for Eagle Association.
Mr. George A. Koplow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on June 30, 1941," by Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., the
The original charge was filed on June 21, 1939, and an amended charge on October 5,
1939; both were against Standard 011 Company of New Jersey solely.
43 N. L. R. B., No. 2.
12
STANDARD OIL COMPANY i3
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Second Region '(New York City), issued
its. complaint dated July 14, 1941, against Standard Oil Company
and Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, herein called the respond-
ents,2 alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (2), and Section 2 (6-) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,herein called the Act. 'Copies. of the com-.
plaint accompanied by notices of hearing were duly served upon the
respondents, the C. I. 0., and Bayway Refinery Employees' Associa-
tion, Bayonne Refinery Employees' Association, and Eagle Refinery
Employees' Association, herein called the Associations.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (a) that about April 1, 1918, the parent company formed,
created, maintained, and established a plan known as Industrial
Representation Plan, herein called the Plan, at its Bayway, Bayonne,
and Eagle Refineries, herein collectively -called the New Jersey Works;
that it continued to maintain and dominate the administration of the'
Plant among its-employees at the New Jersey Works up to 1927 when
title to the New Jersey Works was transferred by the parent company
to the Delaware Company, and that thereafter both respondents con-
tinned to maintain and dominate the Plan in respects specified in the
complaint; (b) that during April and May 1937 the respondents formed
and caused to be formed, created; established, and maintained, at the
New-Jersey Works, in ways specified in the complaint, labor organiza-
tions. known respectively as Bayway, :Bayonne, and Eagle Refinery
Employees' Associations, that thereafter the Plan discontinued opera-
tions under the name of the Plan, and that the Associations are con--
tiniiations and extensions of the Plan, and successors to it; (c) that
from about November 1936, the respondents have urged, persuaded,
and warned their employees at the New Jersey Works to refrain from
aiding, becoming, or remaining nienibers of the C. I.' O., and have
discouraged membership in the C. I. O. by attacking, discrediting, and
disparaging theC. I. O. and its leaders; and (d) that on December 8,
1937; the Delaware Company executed bargaining contracts with the,
Associations, which contracts renewed themselves annually, 'and that,
the Associations were established, maintained,. and assisted by the
respondents and were not the representatives of the employees. in the
units covered by the contracts at the time they were executed, as
required by Section 9 (a) of the Act.
2 Standard Oil Company, incorporated in New Jersey, is generally hereinafter referred to
asA the parent company . Standard Oil Company of New Jersey , a wholly owned subsidiary,
incorporated in Delaware, is generally hereinafter referred to as the Delaware Company.
14 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 22,'1941, the Bayonne Association filed a. "Demand` for
Bill of Particulars" directed to the C.. I. 0., and another document
entitled "Motions" wherein, inter alia,-(a) it moved to intervene; (b)
it requested the C. I. O. to answer its demands for particulars ; and
(c)-.it requested that the. place of hearing be transferred from New.
-York.City to Bayonne, New Jersey. On July 25, the Regional Direc-
tor granted the motion to intervene; did not rule on the demand for
particulars, since- it was addressed to the C. 1. 0.; and, denied..the
request for traasfer. of..the hearing. On August 11,' the respondents
respectively filed motions and answers; wherein, ,inter alia, : it was
moved (a)-that all or'certain specified portions of: the complaint be,
dismissed, and ,(b) that certain specified portions. of the. complaint
be made more definite and. certain, 'or alternatively, that the Board
furnish a bill of particulars-. On: August 19 the Bayway. Association
fi1e&a motion ;to' intervene.
The respondents in their respective answers. admitted certain. allega_,
tionswith respect to their,businesses, admitted that the C.. I. O:; the.
Plan, and the Associations were labor organizations, admitted certain,
other facts alleged in- the complaint, averred- the existence of others,
and denied the alleged, unfair labor practices; they also set up certain
affirmative defense-s.3 . The Associations filed no answers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing .was held beginning on Septeinber 11,
1941,4 and ending, on November 24, 1941, . at New York :City, before
Samuel H. Jaffee, the Trial.Examiner, duly designated by-the Chief
Trial Examiner. At the opening.of the hearing, the Eagle Association
filed a motion to intervene.. The Trial Examiner thereupon granted
the pending motions of the. three. Associations to. intervene, the par
ticipation of the Associations as intervenors being limited to the alle-
gations concerning Section 8 (2) of the Act. All parties were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity.
As an affirmative defense the respondents contend that the dismissal of certain earlier
charges alleging that - the Delaware Company sponsored and dominated the Associations in
violation of Sections ( 1), and •(2) of the Act constituted a-final adjudication of the matters
in dispute in the instant case and that the Board is barred from proceeding further. The
earlier charges were filed in March 1938 and were dismissed by the Regional Director in
June 1938, after an investigation . but before .a complaint was issued . Following the dis-
missal the Delaware Company posted certain notices at the request of the Regional Director.
In similar cases we have frequently held that "No contention based upon the doctrine of
res adjudicata can prevail since the foriner case was dismissed before hearing was reached
and without opportunity for adjudication of the merits ." Matter of Sharon Optical Com-
pany, Inc. and -.Albert L. Ludrick, 11 N. L. R. B. 859, 864 ; Matter of Harry A. Half, doing'
business as The half Manufacturing Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers';
Union, 16 N. L.,R. B. 667 , 682; Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee , 5 N. L. R. B. 908, 911. In the instant case the original
charges were dismissed by the Regional Director even before a complaint . was Issued, and
the Delaware Company . was not prejudiced. as a. result of the Regional Director ' s letter noti-
fying it of the dismissal . A fortiori, the Board is not estopped from proceeding on the.
present charges. '
4 The Regional Director had continued the date of hearing three times . The Bayonne
Association had moved on July 22 for a continuance.
STANDARD OIL COMPA\Y 15
to. be heard,; to. examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to intro-
duce evidence bearing . on the issues was afforded all. parties. At the
beginning ;of the hearing , counsel for the respondents . argued their
motions to- dismiss, and counsel , for the,Bayonne Association . orally
moved and argued that the complaint be dismissed as to said Asso-
ciation. . Counsel for the Bayonne Association also pressed his demand
for particulars , which had been directed to the C. I. 0., and his motion
that the hearing be transferred to Bayonne , New Jersey. The Trial
Examiner granted the . motions of the .respondents for a bill of. par-
ticulars to a specified ,extent, denied the remainder of such motions,
denied . all- other , pending motions ,, and denied the Bayonne Associa-
tion's demand for particulars . The Trial Examiner also stated that
he would _grant continuances at.appropriate times throughout the hear-
ing if . they appeared to be necessary because of his denial of motions,
and reserved ,"such,furthe.r action-as may seem appropriate " oil -account
thereof. Certain continuances were granted later in the hearing.. at
the request of counsel- for the respondents, and permission to defer
cross-examination of 'several Board witnesses was granted until. a
later stage of the hearing. , During the course of the hearing, on
September 17, 1941 , counsel for the Boad filed particulars in response
to the Trial Examiner 's ruling.
At the conclusion of the Board's case , counsel for the respondents
and.. for I the Associations ..moved to dismiss the entire complaint and
various portions thereof. The motions were denied . At the coriclu=
sion of the hearing, the parties renewed these motions and, counsel for
the Board . moved to strike a portion of the respondents' answers. The.
Trial Examiner reserved his ruling on such motions at the hearing and
denied them in his Intermediate Report except to the extent that they
are consistent with the findings of, fact, conclusions of law, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner contained in said Intermediate
Report. A motion by counsel for the Board to amend the pleadings
to conform to the proof as to minor variations , such as in . names and'
dates, was allowed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Exam-
iner made rulings on-other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings
are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing , counsel for the
Delaware Company, the. Bayway Association , and the Board argued
orally before the Trial Examiner and later they , together with counsel
for the parent company, submitted briefs to the Trial Examiner.
On April 3 , 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon all pal-ties , finding that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair - labor prac-
tices affecting . coinmerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the
respondents cease and desist therefrom and from giving effect to-their
contracts with the three Associations, and that they take certain affirm-
ative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were filed by the respondents jointly, by Bayway
Association, and -by Bayonne Association, and briefs- in support of
their respective exceptions were filed by the respondents jointly, and
by Bayway Association.
Pursuant to notice served on all parties, a hearing was held before
the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 7, 1942., for the purpose. of
oral argument. The respondents, Bayway Association, Bayonne
Association, and Eagle Association were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the exceptions
and briefs of the parties and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds them to be without
merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE . RESPONDENTS
Standard Oil Company; the parent company, was iilcor'porated in
1882 under the laws of the State of New Jersey and has its principal
office and place of business in New York City. It now operates solely
as a,holding company. The complaint alleges, the answers admit, and
we find, that it owns all the stock of' more than 50 subsidiary corpora-
tions, and the majority of the stock of-more than 30'subsidiary corpora-
tions, situated in the United States and foreign countries. - Many of
these subsidiaries in turn control still other' subsidiaries. The sub-
sidiaries, generally, produce, refine, transport, buy, and sell crude.
petroleum and petroleum products, and produce, buy, sell,` transport,
and distribute Iiatural gas.
Standard Oil Company of New "Jersey, the Delaware Company,
was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware as a wholly
owiled subsidiary of Standard Oil Company and has its ' principal
office and place of business at New York City, It is eng;iged'in the
refining of crude petroleum and the production and sale of gasoline
and allied products. It owns all or a substantial, part of the stock
of several subsidiary corporations which are similarly engaged. It
owns and operates refineries in New Jersey and other States.
The "New Jersey Works" consists of the Bayway, Bayonne, and
Eagle Refineries, located respectively at Linden, Bayonne, and Jersey
City, New Jersey. The parent company owned and operated the New
Jersey Works until August 29, 1927, when it was' transferred to the
'STANDARD OIL. COMPANY 17
Delaware Company, which has exclusively owned and operated it
since that date.
The purpose of the transfer was mainly to improvethe efficiency
of the operations. No appreciable change in the physical operations
resulted from this transfer, and the Delaware Company formally
adopted all the labor policies previously observed by the parent coin-
pany. The name "New'J.ersey Works" is applied to the three New
Jersey refineries for the reason, as testified to by the general manager
of the New Jersey Works, that no one of them is a complete oil refinery
in itself; they are,complementary rather than supplementary, and
all three make up a complete oil refinery. Each specializes in certain
products and, moreover, certain other products are not always com-
pleted at one refinery, part of the processing operations being com-
pleted at another.
During the year 1940, the New Jersey Works did a total business
involving approximately' 1,694,851,600 gallons of various products
having a refinery value of over $86,000,000, of which substantially more
than 50 percent went into interstate and export business. The parent
company in its answer denies the jurisdiction of the Board as to it.
The Delaware Company, on the other' hand, admits that the New
Jersey Works. is engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, and con-
cedes the jurisdiction of the Board.
Further facts as to the relationship between and the alleged integra
-tion df the two respondents are detailed-hereinafter.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Industrial Representation Plan was,' and the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, Bayway Refinery, Employees' Association,
Bayonne Refinery Employees' Association, and Eagle Refinery Em-
ployees' Association are labor organizations..admitting.to membership
employees at the New Jersey Works.
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The origin of the Plan; its structure; its administration to -1935
The Plan originated with and was devised by the Company in 1918.
On or about March 25 of that year the Company issued an "Announce-
ment and-Invitation to Employees" directed to the wage- earner em-
The past tense is here used as a matter of convenience . The complaint alleges in effect
that the Associations are the Plan by another name.
e As stated above, the Delaware Company took over the operation of the New Jersey
works in 1927 . References to' the "Company" or to the .."Management" throughout are to
the company or management operating the refineries at the time referred to unless the con-
trary is indicated . The situation existing before July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act,
is of course relevant to a 'consideration of the activities after the passage of the Act. See
N. L. R. B . v. Pacific Greyhound Lines ; Inc., 303 U. S. 261.
481039-42-vol. 43-2
18 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of the New Jersey Works to elect representatives.from among
themselves to represent them in dealing with the management in nat-
ters of -mutual interest. The announcement divided the "plants into
election divisions and indicated the number of representatives to be
elected-fron7 each division based upon one representative for each.150
employees.- The announcement set the -date for the election as March
27, described the 'election procedure to be .followed, and defined; the
eligibility of the employee representatives. . The,first election was held
on March.27 on. company property, approximately .96 percent of the
eligible.employees, participating... Management officials and the.super-,
visory,. ;force were not allowed to. vote. Thereupon, on April 1, 1918,
provisions prepared by,the Company were agreed upon between man-
agement and. the elected employee representatives, ,covering; the ein-
ployment department, discipline, right of-appeal, wage adjustments,
and joint conferenceprocedure. This agreement,,with various.changes
and supplements of a relatively: minor nature,,remained'in effect at the
New Jersey Works. until sometime.',m 1937 as more fully hereinafter,
set out.
All hourly rated employees were entitled to participate in the Plan.
The power of the employees to choose their On representatives was
l,imited.by the Plan, which. restricted their choice to employees of,the
division from which elected. Moreover, if all- elected representative
left .the service of the Company or transferred to another division. he
automatically ceased holding office. There was no provision-in the
Plan for any organization among the employee representatives. How
ever, at each refinery they elected a secretary and, beginning in 1933,
a chairman.
The Plan made no provision for meetings of the membership, nor for
any action of the membership other than the-annual:elections. Under
the original agreement the employee representatives met at least quar-
terly in joint conference with an equal number of management repre-
sentatives of the refinery involved, and the representatives of all three
plants met annually in a combined joint conference with management
representatives from the three plants., The management representa-
tives at these conferences consisted of the plant superintendent of the
particular plant involved, department heads, and foremen of the vari-
ous divisions of the refinery from which the employee representatives
were elected. Members of the personnel staff of the participating'
refinery were also present, and usually other persons connected with
management attended, often at the request of employee representatives:
- 7 A conference in which management representatives and employee representatives of a
particular refinery: participated was referred to either as a' "joint conference " or it "local, -
joint conference ." _ A,conference in which management and employee representatives of the
three refineries ' met together was referred. to as a "combined joint conference ." A "divi-
sional, conference 'l was a conference of management and employee representatives of^a divi-
sion of a particular refinery.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 19.
However, only, officially designated: management representatives and
elected employee representatives voted on questions arising at the-
conference.
Pursuant to agreement in joint conference, shortly after inception
of the Plan, Executive Councils were set-up in each plait composed
of an equal number of management representatives and employee
representatives.. These Executive Councils met at -the different- refin-
eries from time to time between joint conferences., While the work
of the local -and-'.'combiiied'joint :conferences and of the Executive
Councils: was devoted mainly to . the handling of employee- grievances
their work covered wages, hours, and :working conditions in general:
Under ahe conference and Executive Council procedure, 'a vote of a-
majority of the - management and employee representativesi:was.
necessary for action.
Beginning in :1934, at the request of the employee : representat.ives; -
combined joint conferences were. held regularly every 3 months:, .-The.
Executive Councils were thereupon discontinued and local joint con-
ferences. began. to be held in each.of the 2 months between the combined
joint, conferences. , Joint conferences and combined joint. conferences
were held on company property, except for:the annual joint conference
held in conjunction ; with the. dinner. and entertainment. furnished by
the Company to management, and employee representatives shortly.
after the annual. elections. These latter meetings were usually held at
the-Newark Athletic Club or a Newark hotel, with the.Company paying
all expenses. . The,superintendent of the particular refinery involved
and the general manager of the New. Jersey. Works - automatically
acted as.chairmen;at.the local joint conferences and the combined joint
-conferences,. respectively. It was the custom in most instances to vote
openly, rather than by secret ballot, on questions coming up at. the,
-conferences.
A company secretary or stenographer took notes, and later, verbatim
minutes, of what occurred at;. each- conference, and .then prepared. a'
narrative condensed .account. thereof which was :checked by the secre=
tary of the employee representatives. After 1933 the.employees who
had been selected by the representatives as their combined secretary
and combined chairman were present when the minutes of combined
joint conferences. were being,prepared by the company stenographer.
Front 1920 to April, 1937 the narrative.minutes were printed by the .
Company and, distributed to the employees of the three refineries
through boxes inside the gates of the plant. The Company bore all
-the: expenses of taking and distributing the minutes. Attendance at
the various local and combined joint conferences, as well as participa-
tion in :the preparation of the minutes,' was on company time with no
loss of, pay to. the participants.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO N S BOARD
The employee representatives occasionally met by themselves in
recesses during joint conferences , and beginning about 1933 they met
by themselves in local caucuses in connection with joint conferences,
and in combined caucuses in connection with combined joint con-
ferences . Beginning about.1934 the employee representatives met on
company property during working ,hours, without loss of pay , at each
plant for a short time prior to the holding of the monthly joint con-
ference there ; and the employee representatives of the three plants met
at least quarterly in combined caucuses during working hours and
without loss . of pay . Until April 23,,1937, employee representatives
were notified of scheduled caucuses on company property by notices
drafted in the Company's personnel office and distributed by the plant
mailing system.
At the Eagle Refinery, where the number of employees was rela-
-tively small's the employees formed in 1934 . the Eagle Works Repre-
sentation Club so that they would have a place to discuss with their
representatives various matters taken up at the joint conferences.
The Club met about once a month . ' It was limited to non-supervisory
employees , virtually all of whom were members. It collected dues;
was entirely self-supporting , and -met off company time and property.
Later the same year a Bayonne Representation Club was organized
along the same lines as the Eagle Club . - At the Bayway Refinery no
such olitside.ametings were held during the life of the Plan, ; although
one . department of the refinery , -the. Steam and Power Department,
had a Club which in part served the same function but which" was
limited to the interests of the members of that particular department.
The elections of employee representatives were held annually during
the month of April. The Company bore all election expenses and
provided the. ballots and the boxes. Until 1934, elections were con-
ducted jointly by company representatives and tellers selected by the
employee representatives . The- employees in each division - were can-
vassed for their votes on the . job during working hoiirs. About -1933
the Company turned the conduct of the'elections over to the employee
representatives ... The elections , however, continued to be conducted
during working hours, and substantially-in the salve manner as before,
with the Company continuing to pay all the expenses thereof, includ-
ing paying the tellers their regular wages. The elections held in April..
1937 were conducted by an Election Board selected by. the employee
representatives of each plant . The Company , however, paid for the
printing of the election rules and the ballots, and for the time of the
tellers spent in tabulating the ballots in the respective personnel offices.
s The number of eligible wage-earner employees at the Eagle Refinery dropped from
1,191 in 1918 to 461 in 1937. After the organization of the Associations in 1937 the Eagle
Refinery was reorganized as the Eagle Division of the - Bayonne Refinery and was placed
under the supervision of the superintendent of the latter refinery.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 21
The entire expense of administration of the Plan was borne by .the
Company, which also furnished supplies and stenographic services to
the employee representatives . Employee representatives not only met
or conferred with management on representation matters without.loss
of pay, but were permitted to meet , their constituents on the job. and
to, attend to other representation duties, also without loss of pay.
Moreover, when they attended joint conferences they were either not
required to work their shifts that day or they were excused from
working the remainder of the shift after the conference had concluded.
If they attended a conference on one of their days off they were given
another , day off in lieu thereof later. Besides the entertainment and
the dinner furnished at the annual combined joint conferences ,* and the
transportation thereto, the representatives were furnished lunches at
many joint caucuses.
No change could be effected in the Plan without the consent of top
management , although changes could be proposed by either the em-
ployee . representatives or management . In 1934 the Company pro=
posed to each group that an arbitration clause be included in the Plan.
This was. accepted . at Bayway , but was rejected at .the other'-two
refineries.
In 1927, as found above , title to and the operation of the New Jersey
Works was transferred by the parent company to the Delaware Com-
pany. Thereupon , the Delaware Company by resolution ratified the
labor policies of'the parent company and continued the same, including
the Plan , in effect.
B. Administration of the Plan and other events=1935 to
April 12,1937
The- ilnpending passage of the National Labor Relations Bill in 1935
caused serious concern among company executives and employee rep-
resentatives , ' At 'the annual combined joint conference of .April 30,
1935, over .which Carringer presided , C. E. Shaw; assistant -head of
the Industrial Relations Department of the parent company, stated
'The respondents' officials met with most frequently in the events 'to be described, and
who held these offices through.1937 and thereafter (some of them were promoted to more
responsible positions after 1937) are as follows :
In the parent company : Frank W. Pierce,' executive assistant to the president ; and head
of the Industrial Relations Department.
In. the Delaware Company:
Offices in New York: Frank W. Abrams, president ; Chester F. Smith, vice president ;
J. R. Carringer, assistant general manager of manufacturing operations ; Ralph L. Mason,
head of the Industrial Relations Department; Owen A. Humphrey, Coordinator of.Indus-
trial Relations (Humphrey is under Mason, and divides his time between the New York
office and the New Jersey Works).
New Jersey Works: George H. Mettam, general manager ; Dr. M. R. Meacham, superin-
tendent Bayway Refinery ; S. J. Tydeman, superintendent Bayonne Refinery ; W. A. Eberle,
superintendent Eagle Refinery ;'John. Burr, personnel manager at Bayway; Milton C, Hagen,
personnel manager at Bayonne.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that if the Bill became law the Plan would either "have to go" or that
it would be very difficult to operate it under the Act without revisions,
although it "might be able to continue." During the meeting both
Shaw and Carringer praised the Plan' highly, and at the conclusion of
the meeting the employee representatives voted to meet with Shaw
the next day so that-the employee representatives could decide what
action to take. In consequence, the employee representatives shortly
circulated a petition in the refineries directed to members of Congress,
calling for defeat of the Bill. The Company was aware of this activity
and approved of it.
At a joint conference held at the Bayway Refinery on July 11, 1935,
following the passage of the Act, a letter dated June 28, 1935, from
Abrams, president of the Delaware Company, to Vice-President Smith
was read. This letter said in substance that 'a statement of the Com-
pany's position was desirable in view of legislative developments con-
cerning the Bill; that Smith should "pass along" the Company's
position; which was "to deal with the employees in any way they desire,"
but'that the Compa.n•y preferred to deal' through' the Plan. The letter
concluded as follows : "In summation, please advise your people that
regardless-of whether or not the Wagner Bill becomes law, we will
maintain the Industrial Representation Plan, as we have in the past
seventeen years, so long as any of our employees desire to deal with
the Company through this *medium?'
-At-a combined caucus of 'the employee representatives held at the
Bayway Refinery on September 25, 1936, the representatives went on
record as being 100 percent behind the. Plan, and appointed a committee
-to draft a reply to certain newspapers. which'ha'd'printed articles indi-
cating that the Plan might-affiliate -with -the C. I. 0.; this, the repre-
sentatives; felt, -was- derogatory to the Plan. On `Septernher • 28-- the
committee drafted a letter to the newspapers wherein the Plan was
highly praised and wherein.it was indicated that it would continue by
itself. Mimeographed statements of what took place at the meeting
of the 25th were-prepared on company equipment to distribute to em-
ployees: This was done with the knowledge of company officials and
during working hours. ;
The considerable C. I. O. activity occurring' about this' time through-
out_the country,disturbed the . employee. representatives. In December
1936, John L. Lewis, then head of that organization, invited. a number
of employee representatives .o, the New Jersey Works to meet with him
to discuss possible unionization of the oil industry. Approximately
six of them weht to Washington on January 23, 1937, and conferred
with Lewis. Their primary purpose was to obtain information; and
the resu'lt.of the conference with Lewis was that they were unimpressed
-with the-idea of affiliating with the C. I. 0. In an article in The
Bayonne Times of January 25, 1937, Lewis was quoted as saying that
STANDARD OIL : COMPANY 23
the Act would "outlaw company unions in the oil industry , and the
oil workers must prepare in the only way they have-jjarticipation in
and with the C. I: 0."
The trip to Washington considerably incensed other representatives
and employees , with the result that those who had made the trip took
pains to point out that they had gone to Washington merely as indi-
viduals and not, as employee representatives , and for the purpose of
getting information rather than with any thought of favoring affilia-
tion with the C. I . O. At a combined joint conference held on Jan-
nary 29, Thomas W. McMillan, combined chairman of the employee-
representa .tives , requested the management 's permission to draft a
newspaper release to counteract publicity which had appeared in the
newspapers . ' He said that the purpose of the -trip to Washington had-
been ' merely educational , that the -representatives ' had gone on record
at a caucus as being 100 percent back of the Plan, that the representa-
tives - believed in employee representation, and that they wished to
express this sentiment through 'the newspapers . • Another represents=
tive indicated ' concern as to the effect of the Act upon the Plan. Gen-
eral Manager Mettam,- who presided at the conference , replied that
the "best legal talent in the country " was 'of the opinion that the Act
would be upset , but that'even if the Act were upheld , other forms of
collective bargaining could not compare with the Plan. He said that
the Plan had been in effect 19 years , that'the Company paid top wages,
had a 36-hour week and the best working conditions in the country,
and that Senator -Wagner had been quoted as `saying that the'Act was
never intended to upset ' effective ; employee representation plans.
Mettam concluded by saying that the employees need 'not worry about
the continuance of the Plan and that he could give them "real assurance
so far as - it is humanly possible to:do' so, that ,the representation plan
will continue." McMillan responded that Mettam 's remarks had 'been
"very reassuring" and that he hoped Mettam's statement would be car-
ried 'fully'in the minutes 10 so that the employees could be "reassured."
On the same day or the following day, at a combined caucus of
employee representatives held at the Bayway plant during working
hours, the representatives agreed that , various newspaper articles-about
the Washington conference were "contrary to 'fact" and appointed a
committee of officers from the three plants ' to draft a reply. ',The
reply was mimeographed on a company duplicating machine, on com-
pany stationery , and was distributed , all with the knowledge of 'the'
Company. The statement reiterated- that the trip had been made to
Washington by employee representatives in their individual capaci-
ties "for the .purpose of securing information ", that the representatives
at a combined caucus "again went on record unanimously in-declaration
10 It was. Minutes of combined joint conferences and joint conferences, both of the Plan
and the Associations, are in evidence.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their faith in the present employee representation plan"; and that
it was. "their firm feeling that their Representation. Plan offers the
workers the best form of collective bargaining." Copies of this state-
ment accordingly appeared in the local newspapers and thus became
generally known among the employees."
Nor was the activity of the C. I. 0. without some reaction in the.
official publications of the Company.. Thus, in the. February 1937
issue-of The Lamp, official publication of the parent company which
was.generally distributed to the employees of the New Jersey Works,
there appeared. an editorial entitled "Industrial Wars Without a Vic-
tory." Therein it was stated that reversion was sometimes made "to
the barbaric test of victory by. intimidation"; that the law protected
"professional disturbers" some of whom "are in the United States
illegally"; that while "not a perfect device' .... it means an economic
.loss of nationwide concern' if strife is .to be substituted now
for peaceful negotiation"; that "There are fields for both" industrial
representation and.labor unions; and that "Good results can be ob-
tained -by collective bargaining through an agency which is the volun-
tary choice of the employees, if their selected representatives and
those. speaking. for management., show an honest intent at arriving at
a fair middle ground." The editorial, concluded that where "em-
ployees have organized (among themselves) for collective bargain-
. ,ing• according to their own ideas, without outside persuasion or in-
timidation, they.have a perfect machine for avoiding labor disputes.
.That is the fundamental idea of democracy in government."
In March. 1937, the C. I.. 0. announced that on April 5 it would
begin an organizational drive in the oil industry in New Jersey. This
perturbed the employee representatives, and" at a combined caucus
held at the Baywayplant on March 12, 1937, there was considerable
discussion _of the subject. ' Although it was-not customary for man-
agement representatives to attend employee representative caucuses,
'McMillan,invited:Mettam to attend the caucus, testifying that;he did
so because the representatives wanted assurances that the Company
".would stand behind the Plan ; that at .that time "there were numerous
plants"that'were going over to organized.labor, and that. also. had.some
bearing. on the. fear that had', been created---in the minds of some .of
the representatives." Mettam testified that there was some question
in his mind; as to whether it was proper to attend, but after discussing
it with other members of the management he ^ decided that it was
proper. "and probably desirable from: an employee's standpoint." He
;'.It was stipulated at the hearing that the following local newspapers were generally and
widely read among the employees in the respective plants : the Elizabeth Daily Journal at
Bayway (the Bayway plant is in Linden which'is"contiguous to Elizabeth), The Bayonne
Times at Bayonne, and the Newark Ledger at Eagie. .
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 25
attended, together with Ralph L. Mason, head of the Delaware Com-
pany's Industrial Relations Department, and Owen A. Humphrey,
personnel coordinator.
At this caucus Mettam was told by the employee representatives
that they wanted him to "assure" them as to. what the Company's atti-
tude would be in case the Act was declared constitutional. Mettam
again referred to the opinion of "the best legal talent," and to. state-
ments which he said were attributed to.John L. Lewis and to Senator
Wagner. There was also some discussion about incidents occurring
in connection with current strikes in. various parts of the country in-
volving the C. I. O. As to this, Mettam testified : "I told them that the
company was ready to go as far as it legally could, at their request, to
protect them from intimidation . I said. that there was a lot being
published in newspapers about the communistic element trying to
take over the C. I. O. •, that. they . might come down and try to
take over any organization that their own men had; that you' could
ilot always tell them when you saw them; that they sort of -hid their
light under a bushel ..." Mettam also said that he was 10Q percent
behind the Industrial Representation Plan.
Subsequently, in March 1937, the Company granted .the employees
a 10-cent per hour raise. in wages. The purpose behind the granting
of this .wage'increase is in dispute. Mettam presided at a combined
joint conference on March 19, where the employee representatives asked
for -a 10-cent per hour: increase, basing the request, according to; the
minutes and to Mettam's admissions at the hearing, on two grounds :
(1) that. a refinery-,of another company in the, community had given
such an increase, and (2) that the granting of a similar raise would
be helpful to the employee representatives in beating the contemplated
C. I. O: drive. In response, the company representatives first.,took
the position 'that' the fact that the neighboring refinery, which had
relatively few employees, had given the increase did not establish that
the rate paid by that company was the "prevailing rate," which was the
rate the Company had agreed to meet, according to the provisions of
the Plan; and that a "prevailing rate" meant an average rate rather
than a top rate. Then followed considerable discussion during which
the Plan was' praised and the C. 1. 0. compared unfavorably with it.
- According, to the verbatim minutes of the March 19 conference,
Haney, one of the employee representatives, said that at the caucus on
March 12 Mason and Humphrey had told the representatives "to ,go
back" to their plants "and sell representation," and that the repre-
sentatives had done so. The minutes indicate that this statement by
Haney on 'March 19 was undenied. Mettam, Mason, and Humphrey
denied at the hearing that the representatives were told at the March
12 caucus that they should go back to their plants and sell representa-
tion. As a matter of fact, none of the company officials had made
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
these statements at ,the. March 12 caucus. But they had .praised the
Plan highly and had indicated clearly that the Company was opposed
to the C. I. 0. Thus, although Haney may have overstated himself
at the -combined joint conference of March 19, it is a fair .inference
that he gathered the not. unreasonable impression at the March 12
caucus that his words on the 19th indicate.- Furthermore, the failure
to deny. the: statement on the 19th was, itself an indication that the
Company was-willing to have the employee representatives understand -
that they should continue to "sell representation." That the employee
representatives had done so, and continued to do so during the next
few crucial weeks, .is clear from the evidence, and. hardly disputed.12
The condensed Version ,of the minutes of the March 19 combined joint
conference, which. was. distributed to the employees, made no reference
to Haney's. remark about selling' representation, but did contain
Haney's statement that 'at the March 12 caucus-the. company repre-
sentatives had said. that the Company "would back the Plan 'and that
the 'employee representatives could assure their constituents .of_ this.".
According to the minutes and the 'testimony at the hearing, much
of the talk at the March 19 conference, -so. far as it =bore upon the
Plan-and-the C. I. 0., was similar to that which-had taken'-place on
Marchh12. Mettam referred to the "threat or promise" of the C. I. 0.;
to, start a drive on the oil industry in New Jersey on April 5. He
emphasized that there would be no discrimination against anyone
because of his membership or affiliation with any labor organization,
but' added that it 'was the Company's experience since 1918 that the
Plan was the best' method of collective bargaining,' emphasizing that
since the' Plan had been in operation there had been no -interruption
of employment as a result of labor disputes. He added that the. Com-
pang. was willing; :on request, 'to' protect the employees -so far as it
legally -could" from intimidation in connection with' the proposed
C.'-I. 0. drive. He concluded by referring to the requested wage in-
crease, said that the Company would do "the right thing,"" that he
wouldtry to have an answer on the question the- following week; and
that "you fellows will have it." The effect of Mettarn's remarks is
indicated by the ,esponse of •McMillan, who said that _the-'representa-
fives =N^ere particularly pleased by what Mettam had `said regarding
`'outside organizations." In reply, Mettam indicated that a'coinpari-
son might be made between wages paid at the New Jersey Works and
other oil plants which were 100 percent unionized. On March 24,
5 days later, there was another combined joint conference, at' which'
the Company announced that it had granted a 10-cent per hour increase
to become effective April 1.
_ 12 Compare the remarks of Representative Brennan made at the combined joint conference
of September 15, 1937, referred to infra.
STANDARD "OIL- COMPANY. 27.
The Company argues that the- increase was granted solely in order
io comply with its policy of meeting at. least the prevailing rate in the
community , and not in order to counteract the proposed C. I. O. drive.
The evidence does not support the Company in its contention. Its
representatives argued on March'19 that the "prevailing rate" did not
necessarily mean the top rate; that the increase in question had been'
.granted by a, competitor which had very few employees ; that; in short,
the prevailing rate was the average rate in the community . There was
some testimony that there had been , fora short time prior to March 19,
and between March 19 and 24, some investigation by the Company as
to wage rates , and that by March 24 the Company had come to the
conclusion in substance that the prevailing rate had been so affected
by the increase at the competing plant and ' other factors that it would
grant the requested increase . This-evidence is not convincing. We
find, as did the Trial Examiner , that at least one materially moti-
vat,ing factor in the granting of the raise was the Company 's desire
to offset the planned C. I. O. drive. That such an increase in wages
would tend to have that effect, and to cause the employees to continue
to prefer the Plan over the . C: I. O., is'.clear.13:.
On March 20, the March issue of the Esso Refner , official publica-
tion. of the Delaware Company , was distributed to. the employees at
the New Jersey Works: ' This issue contained an 'ar ticle entitled
"Employee Representation and Collective Bargaining ," which was
highly laudatory of the Plan. The subhead , "How the - Plan' was
Developed , the W Tay it , Works, What Iit Has Accomplished'. .."
sufficiently illustrates the matter covered.
The' annual election for the positions , of employee representatives
was held from April 5 to 9 , 1937 . As set forth above, this ' election
was conducted in the same fashion as in the 'preceding several years;
the Company paying for all election: expenses ,' and the elections being
conducted in. the plant during working hours. Election boards
appointed by the employee representatives had charge of the elec
tions. Of the total of . 56 representatives elected, ' 40 were reelected
and 16wvere-ne«.ly elected, 4 of the 16 representing . an. increase in the
number of-representatives . A great many of the representatives
reelected had held. these 'positions for se eral years. . Ofthe 6,656
employees eligible to vote 14 a total of 6,574 voted , representing 98:7
percent of the total eligibles, - -there being substantially ,. no variation
at the 3, plants in this respect.
18 Cf. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. N. L. R. B.,'121 F. (2d) 658 (C. C. A: 2) ; N. L. If. B. v:
W. A. Jones Foundry and Machine Company, 123 F. (2d).552 (C. C. A. 7) ; The M. H; Ritz,
welter. Company v. N. L. If, B.,_114 F. (2d) _432 (C. C. A. 7).
24 At Bayway 3,233 ; at Bayonne 2,962 ; at Eagle 461.
28 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Events- from April 12 to V, 193715
Oil -the morning of April 12, 1937, the respective plant superintend-
ents or personnel heads issued notices to the employee representatives
• of each plant, that meetings of the representatives would be held on
April 14 for the purpose of electing chairmen and secretaries of their
respective groups. While these notices were issued during the morn-
ing of April. 12, before the Supreme Court decisions sustaining the
Act 18 were announced-that clay, the Company convened the representa-
tives to meet on company property on the 14th, paid them their regu-.
lar wages for the time so spent, and knew that at least one purpose
of these meetings was to elect officers.
There was considerable uncertainty during the 10-day period fol-
lowing , the Supreme Court decisions of April 12 among members of
-management, employee representatives, and various employees, as
to .the effect of the decisions on the Plan.' The uncertainty of the
representatives and-the,employees was not dispelled by. the Company's
distributing copies of the Act to the employee representatives on
April 15.18 Nor was this uncertainty dispelled by answers to requests
which representatives and. other employees made of company officials
for. a statement of the Company's position. Thus, John Burr, head of
the personnel department at l3ayway, when questioned at various
times, between April 12 and 23 by employee. representatives and others
as to what the Company's position was, replied that he did not know,
and that their guess was as good as his. In none of these conversations
were the representatives told that the Plan was illegal or that its.con-
tinuance would violate the Act. The furthest these officials went was
to say. in substance that until the Company's,-position was offijcially
announced the employee representatives could not deal as-such with
the Company on "major questions," but that, they could, act for em-
15 The employee representatives referred to most often hereinafter, and their positions as
Plan-officers, %are as follows: Thomas W. McMillan, chairman, combined employee repre-
sentatives ; Charles J.. Coyle , combined secretary and Eagle secretary ; Frank Spears, Bay-
way chairman ; Thomas J. Brennan , Bayway secretary ; Charles Mallon, Bayonne chairman ;
Clement Hurley , Bayonne secretary ; and James Kelly, Eagle chairman . As will be described
hereinafter , they continued in these capacities when the Associations were set up, along
with representatives Edward A. McGann and Edward J. Rodgers , who became treasurers
'at Bayway and Bayonne , respectively. Charles C. Jones and Herbert Eckert were also
extremely active representatives . Most of these men had been representatives for many
years, and were among the most active in the transition from the Plan to the Associations.
16 N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1;. and companion cases.
14 Mettam , general manager of the New Jersey works , at first testified that he thought
it was the Company's opinion that the Act would be held unconstitutional and also that the'
Plan did not , in any event , violate it. He later. testified, however, that discusisons with:
company executives were to the effect that " Since the plan had been established by the
company , it was considered as not meeting the requirements of the . . . -Act."
18 Copies were also distributed , to the officially appointed representatives of management
at joint conferences , but none were distributed to-the employees as a whole.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 29
ployees on individual grievances; and this, in fact, certain employee
representatives did.rs _
The uncertainty among the employee representatives as to the effect
of the Supreme Court decisions caused some differences of opinion
-among them. As Representative Brennan testified, some- of. there
thought the entire Plan was illegal, while others thought the Plan
could continue if. revisions were made. According ' to Mettam, Mc-
Millan, and . others, the employee representatives understood; as did
the employees generally, . that the management of the, Company was
-desirous that the . Plan should continue to function and that the. Corn-
was 100 percent behind it. But the representatives were anxious
to receive , front .the Company an official reiteration of this position so
that they and the employees as a whole could be "reassured." Hence',
according to ^Mettam 's own testimony ,. several employee representa=
tives kept "prodding " Mettam to obtain an official statement of the
Company's position . Mettam, in turn, conferred in New Yorke with
Abrams, Carringer , Mason , and Pierce who was head of the Industrial
Relations Department of the parent company.
The employee representatives of the three plants did not, however,
wait . for an official announcement from the - Company but, pending
the receipt thereof, they took some action of their own . The officers
of the three ..groups of employee representatives had read in .the news-
papers of April 16 that Secretary of Labor-Perkins planned to hold
a conference it `«Tashington to discuss the enforcement of the -Act fol-
:lowing the Supreme Court decisions , and that W. C. Teagle, president,
of the parent company, was one of those invited to attend. As a re-
sult, the three local chairmen , Spears of Bayway, Mallon of Bayonne,
and Kelly , of Eagle, and the combined chairman and secretary, Mc-
Millan of Bayway and Coyle of Eagle , respectively , met at the
Bayonne plant on the morning of April 16 during working hours, re-
ceiving their regular wages for the day , and drafted a letter- to
Mettam setting forth their views .'' Their letter informed Mettam
that they.vwere writing "on behalf of the- 7,000 wage earners in the
three New-Jersey Works, " that "many people may confuse our Plan
with solve of th'e" other employee representation plans which have not
functioned so successfully," that the employees "are unanimous in
feeling that they should be able to carry on with our Plan as a means
of collective bargaining," that "we wish to fight to the last ditch. for
the continuation of our Representation Plan . . . wish to take the
offense in this matter and make known our sentiments to-those who
10 What Burr told the individual employee representatives and employees who spoke to
him, in substance was what Mettam and one or more of the plant superintendents and other
personnel department heads said. Other than this there was no attempt , between April
12 and 23 , to communicate .to the employees generally what the Company 's position was as
to the effect of the decisions on the Plan. .
20 They had the letter mimeographed at the plant so that copies could be given to all
the employee representatives . It was apparently not distributed to all the employees.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may have .some voice in the discussion of this entire _ question." Mc-
Millan, who took the principal part-in the drafting of this letter, testi
fled that it had been sent to Met-tam rather than to Secretary of Labor
Perkins because the representatives were simply following -the custom
they had-followed previously, and that they "wanted everybody con-
nected with the management and everybody in the plant to know just
how we did feel." .
The letter was immediately given to Mettam who sent a copy -to
Abrams.. On April 20 Abrams sent a reply to Mettam in which he
stated that Teagle wanted the men to understand that he was going
to Washington solely as an individual , and not as a spokesman for
either the employees or the Company: The letter concluded that, the
Company hoped that during the next few days-the question would be
clarified so that company representatives could meet with the employee
representatives and discuss the matter, and that in the meantime if
the employee representatives still desired to request a conference with
the Secretary of Labor,.they' might -themselves write to the Secretary.
A copy of ,this letter was handed -by Mettam to the cha-irmen of the
respective employee groups and to the combined chairmen and the
combined secretary. No letter was ever sent to the Secretary of Labor.
The, evening: ofi April 16, .elriployee.representatives met off-company
property and on-their own time and appointed a committee of_which
Frank Spears acted as. chairman , for the purpose, so Spears testified,
-"to get some information -on formation of an organization -in-, case we
were out we should be."prepared." 21. During this entire period, many
of: the employee. representatives had spoken to. numerous employees in
the respective refineries as to the situation. According to the testimony
of the employee representatives who testified:as .to these conversations,
which we credit to a11is extent, the employees who spoke to said repre-
sentatives told them that since the representatives had been elected in
the April election, it was:up to them to^"carry on as nearly as possible"
like the Plan.22 . It is clear that throughout this entire-period to April
22, neither the representatives nor the employees as a whole-under-
stood or took the position th at the Plan was, ended or - could not con-
tinue, although many of them were of the opinion that certain revi-
sions had to be made therein, mainly in connection with the elimina-
tion of financial or similar support by the Company.
By..April 22, 1937, as.-a result of conferences in which Abrams,
Mason, Carringer,.Pierce, and Mettam participate(], and after consul-
21The committee procured information as to . other employee associations, particularly
with reference to an employee representation plan at the New Jersey Bell Telephone Com-
pany , where they discovered that a check-off of'dues was in 'effect. '
The letter of April 16 which they employee representativeofcers sent to Mettain stated
that "a recent canvass by the Elected Representatives of their constituents - indicated that
the employees were unanimous in feeling that they should be able.to carry on with our Plan
as a means of collective bargaining." Actually there was no canvass.
STANDARD. OIL COMPANY 31
tation with the Company's legal department, a notice dated April 22,
1937, was drafted which, it was agreed by them, would be made known
by the Company to the local 'chairmen of the employee representatives,
and to their combined chairman and combined secretary.
The complete text of the notice of April 22 is as follows :
APRU 2211937.
Numerous requests -have been received from the employees as
to the effect which the Supreme Court decision on the Wagner
Act may have on the representation plan.
Collective bargaining now established by law is the process by
which a majority of the employees of an appropriate unit elect
representatives to meet with the management to discuss and settle
all matters affecting wages, hours, and working conditions. The
Act 'thus recognizes the principle of collective bargaining which
has been followed voluntarily for the past twenty years by our
employees and management. The fact that during this period
there have been no labor disturbances in our company's operations
indicates the advantages of collective bargaining to both employee
and. management. .
The Act protects the rights of employees to bargain collectively -
with their employer without domination, interference, coercion
or restraint on the part of. the employer. If the representatives
are the free choice of a majority of the employees,. a representation
plan, which is not "company, dominated" or. financially supported,
fulfills the requirements of the Wagner Act. Neither is there
anything in .this Act to cause the Company to change its long-
established- policy. of not discriminating against any,ei ployee be-
cause of membership or non-membership in any. church, society;
fraternity, or union.
In view of the Supreme Court decision, the Company will :
1. Bargain collectively with any group representing a majority
of the employees in an appropriate unit a'-lid will also consider
grievances presented by individual employees or. groups of em-
ployees.
2. Pay employees only for the time spent during working hours
in conference with the management. The Act will preclude the
Company from paying the expenses of elections and other like
costs.
While the management's interest in the welfare of its personnel
remains unchanged, the law now requires, if the employees desire
a collective bargaining agency, that it be developed and established
by themselves. It isthe earnest hope of the management that the
friendly relations that now exist may continue under whatever
procedure the employees may adopt.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. From the "Statement o l Policy" to the- Associations : April 03 to
May 28, 1937
On the morning of April 23 a meeting was held in the office of.Dr..
M. R. Meacham', Bayway superintendent, which lasted about an hour
and a half. Those present for management were Abrams, Smith, 'Car-
ringer, Mettai i Mason, Humphrey, and Meacham. The employee
representatives present were Plan Officers McMillan and Coyle, chair-
man and se'cretary'respectively'of the combined group of employee rep
resentatives, and Spears, Mallon, and Kelly, chairmen respectively of
the BaywayI'Bayollne,- and Eagle-in
At 'the beginning of -the meeting Abrams' read the Statement of
Policy. 'Then followed some discussion concerning which "there is cou-
siderable:disagreement. It-seems-clear, on the whole, and we find- that
.the 'einployee representatives present were told that the Phan violated
the Act and that the ' Company' could no longer go - on under it as it
was then 'constituted'; also, in substance, that it would be entirely up to
the employees to decide for themselves what they wanted to do. Several
of the employee representatives and Mason, Mettam, and Humphrey
testified in substance that Abrams said that the Plan was "out" and
that the-Company could no longer deal with the employee representa-
tives under it. What was discussed thereafter had to do mainly"with
"any changes that might-be necessary", in the Industrial -.1epresenta
tiori PI anlin order that it might conform to the Act.23 McMillan; who,
accordiiig to his own testimony, did most of the talking for the, repre-
sentatives, said that from his contact with the men he knew that they
wanted`•to^ set 'up an organization which under the law would permit
them'to c,rryon under the same form of bargaining which had-proved
so successful for the past 20 years. Abrams said that the Company was
obliged to recognize Zany .organization the men chose, but that it could
no longer continue financial support Would not be able to pay for
minutes.of joint conferences, would not be able to pay for the time of
the employee representatives on representation work except for time
spent'iii conferring with management, and would not be able to provide
certain other forms of support, the details of which were then dis-
cussed. Certain of the employee representatives' and company officials
testified that Abrams indicated at the meeting that the Plan was, as
Humphrey put it in his testimony, "finished, or had to be disestablished,
discontinued, or stopped-words to that effect." On consideration of
all the evidence we agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence
does not support this testimony or the contentions of the respondents .
and the Associations in this regard. What Was made clear was merely
23 It should be noted that Mettam , at the April 28 dinner meeting referred to below, said
that the conversation was "about what was in the wind-any changes that might be neces-
sary-where we found ourselves after the decision on.the Wagner Bill."
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 33
that certain features of the Plan having to do with the contribution
of various- forms of support by the Company to the Plan had to be.
eliminated. It is clear in any -event.-that, regardless of what was, said
by, management representatives at this meeting of April 23, the em
ployee representatives present did not receive the impression that thel
Plan was disestablished. Rather, the testimony on the whole supports'
the conclusion and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the im-
pression received was, as McMillan testified, that the, management
would have to "withdraw" from participation in the Plan and elimi-
nate financial support. While most of the representatives testified
that they understood from what had been said at the April 23 meeting.
that the Plan was "out," subsequent events, particularly the occur-
rences of April 26, April 28, and May 19,mor.e fully refe'rred-to:here=°
inafter, conflict with these assertions. The representatives had the
definite impression that the elimination of financial support would
remedy any legal defect that existed. in the Plan, provided only that
the employees voted in favor of the change. Mettam himself testified
that the representatives present "were pretty much at sea and were
endeavoring to get Mr. Abrams to agree to go as -far. in financial sup-
port and so on as they possibly could, and to that end they [gave] the
impression that they thought then, on April 23rd," that a representa-
tion plan such as they had had in the past, minus the features of
company support, would be a legal one.
During the discussion the employee representatives said that, in
connection with the organization they proposed setting up, they desired
.the .Coippany to agree to "check off" dues. The company officials
suggested in substance that the point remain open pending further
developments.
. Nor does the testimony establish, as some of the witnesses testified,
that it was made clear to the employee representatives present that the
employee representatives no longer held that status. What they said
at this meeting indicated that they still regarded themselves as such,
and later events bear out this finding. For example, during the dis-
cussion the employee representatives present asked the company
officials who would pay for their time spent as representatives,
whether they would be permitted to travel around the yards and in-
terv-.iew.their constituents on company time, and further questions of
this-type. At no time during the discussions on April 23 did the com-
pasiy.officials make it plain to the employee representative officers that
their status as officers or as representatives had ceased.
It was agreed at the conclusion of the meeting that all the repre-
sentatives would be called together at the Bayonne plant on Monday,
April 26, and that someone from the management would explain the
situation to them. . Abrams said that they would have to provide their
own transportation to this meeting. A question was raised as to the
481039-42-vol. 43-3
34. DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR_ RELATIONS BOARD,
customary -annual dinner-meeting which had been seta- prior to the.
Supreme Court decisions, for April 28,.and had later been, canceled.,
After some discussion, Abrams said in substance that the meeting
of April 28. would be held but that it was not to be regarded as a--
combined joint conference., but rather as an "informal", get-together.
or "farewell dinner," and that lie would invite the elected.-representa
tives and "former" management representatives as guests:24
Most of the employee representatives. from the three plants met-
at the Bayonne refinery on the morning of April 26. • The. meeting,
lasted from before 9 a. in. until 3: 30 or 4-: 00 in the afternoon, ;tlie:,
representatives receiving their regular - pay. for the time. so spent.
Humphrey was the only management representative present= He was. .
in and out of tl>e meeting about four or five times, the first time giving
his-version of the management's . position, and the remaining times
coming in only to answer questions asked by the representatives. What
occurred at this meeting is considerably disputed: Humphrey, in -his-
testimony, indicated an unusual lack of recollection of what he had
said to the employee representatives on. April 26, although he did say
that he was. sure he said nothing that contradicted what Abrams had
said on April 23. Thus, in response to a question as to whether lie'
recollected saying that the jilen could carry on in the same manner as
in the past with the exception of financial support from the Company,
he testified that he had no clear recollection one way or the .other,
although he was sure that lie had not made the statement for the reason
that'it would have been contrary to what had been said on April" 23
Nor could he recall, according to his own testimony, whether he had.
said that the Company wanted to carry on the Plan as in the past, or _
that the Plan could carry on with minor.changes, nor whether there
was any discussion having to do with the setting up of an independent
organization, the drafting of a constitution and bylaws, or the holding
of a referendum. .
It is the contention of the respondents that Humphrey. iN as present.
at the April 26 meeting merely for the purpose of _ explaining. the
management's position as indicated by Abrams at the April 23 con-
ference. But it is clear that Humphrey, not content on April 26
with reading the Statement of Policy, went into considerable detail
to explain what the management could and could.not do in connec-
tion with the future collective-bargaining relationship between the
Company and its employees. Several of the representatives. testi-.
z' As will be described below, a meeting was held on the afternoon of Apr:l. 28, attended
by employee representatives and management representatives, lasting over 2 hours and
before the dinner began , and at which the same sort of matters were taken up and discussed
as had been at former annual combined joint conferences held in conjunction with the,
annual dinners. Compare the reference to the "farewell dinner" with Carringer's remarks
to the employee representatives on April 28 : ". . . don't- get any idea that this is any
funeral party."
STANDARD - OIL COMPANY • 35
fled irr substance that what was •'said by Humphrey oil : April 26 "did
not vary from what was said on April 23 except that Humphrey
gave more details . But the testimony of these representatives was,
inconsistent in many particulars .. Coyle,_ combined secretary of the
employee representatives, took notes of what was said at this meet-
ing and testified as a.witness at the hearing. According to. his ver-
sion, which we find to be substantially accurate , Humphrey indicated
to the representatives that they could carry on in the , same manner
with the exception of financial support from the Company such as._
election expense , transportation , dinners, and meetings on ' company,
time; that the last thing the Company would do would be to-let the'.
Plan down; th It the representatives could carry on the Plan with
minor changes , but that it was up to the representatives to decide
What form of collective bargaining the men wanted, and that they.
need not make any changes for 2, or 3 days . 25 Coyle was not the only.
one who received the impression, which he testified to at the hearing,
that the Plan could continue with the elimination of financial sup
liort from the Company, and with minor changes , provided only that-
the employees in the New - Jersey Works wished it that way. That,-
in substance , was also the opinion of James Kelly, employee repre-
sentative chairman from Eagle, for example. Moreover, it is clear
that regardless of what Humphrey said on April 26, or what Abrams
'The respondents contend in their brief that Coyle , in his notes on the ineeting , errone-
ously attributed to Humphrey certain statements to the effect that they could carry on in
the same, manner without financial support or with minor changes' because Coyle "never
could differentiate" between collective bargaining as exemplified by the Plan, and the Plan
itself as an agency of collective bargaining. The Trial Examiner, in 'his Intermediate
Report, found that Coyle, while honest, was an unsatisfactory witness in some respects ancl
that his testimony indicated that at times he had difficulty on this point, but that despite
this, his testimony on the whole, and other circumstances in the case, lead to the conclusion
that his version of what took place, as indicated by his Dotes and his testimony, is more
nearly correct than that given by other witnesses.
We agree with the Trial Examiner. The testimony and exhibits in the case show-that
many other employees, in addition to Coyle, had difficulty : in distinguishing,between "a rep-
resentation- plan" (referring to a method of collective bargaining) and "the Representation
Plan" (referring to a specific example of such method). While the distinction is a nice
one, we are convinced that it was not emphasized by management representatives or -gen-
erally understood by employee representatives if it be assumed that the management sought
to make it. For 19 years the Plan had been the method of collective bargaining, and the
employees at the New Jersey works had had no other type of representation. It is'obvious,
'therefore, that when representatives of the Company spoke to employees of "a representa-
tion plan," the employees must have understood and ' interpretedItile statement to refer to
the Plan. If Coyle wrote "Plan" when Humphrey meant "plan," we are inclined to believe
that the other representatives also understood Humphrey to mean "Plan.,"
The respondents and the Associations objected to the admission of Coyle's notes into
evidence, and contend that they should not be accorded any weight as evidence. We have
considered the arguments they have advanced but are not persuaded. While he was not a
skilled stenographer, Coyle attempted'to record the remarks made by the. speakers as accu-
rately as he was able. ' Ile was the duly elected secretary of the representatives and took
his notes with no view' to their being employed in future litigation. Many of the recorded
remarks were corroborated by the testimony of witnesses. , In view of the understandable
discrepancies and lapses of memory apparent in the testimony of the witnesses as to state-
ments made more than 4 years before the bearing, Coyle's notes are entitled to considerable
weight. The same reasoning, of course, applies to numerous .,her notes and minutes
received in evidence.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had said on April 23, most of the employee representatives enter-
tained views as to what they could do which were contrary to the
alleged position of the Company as counsel for the Company stated
that position to be at , the hearing. These views were . obtained from
what was said to them on April 23 by Abrams and other officials, by
Humphrey on April -26, and by various company officials before
those dates and thereafter.21
Significant corroboration that the impression that the employee
representatives received on April 23 and 26 was as found above,
appears in the circumstances surrounding the publication in The
Bayonne Times of April 28 of a first-page story with a lead headline
entitled "Oil Men Forming Independent Union," one of the subheads
of which read, "Company Says Few Changes Are Needed to Comply
with Labor Law." This article stated. in part that employee repre-
sentatives wereA drafting plans "for anew organization to supplant
the present employee representation system which was outlawed by"
the Act; that.the management had informed the representatives on
April 26 "that in view of the' Supreme Court's decision . . it
would be-necessary for the men themselves to snake whatever changes
they desired in the labor relations . . . They were also informed of
features of the present employee representation system which will
have to be eliminated"; that the representatives thereupon appointed
a committee of 11 to draft a constitution to be submitted to the
-workers for approval for their "independent union" which would
be "closely patterned after the employee representation -system but
will eliminate those-features which are objectionable in the eyes of
the Wagner Act ..." The article concluded as follows :
Officials of the Standard asserted that there are only a few
minor changes that would.have to be made in the present em-
ploye representation system under the Wagner Act provisions.
These include a provision that in the future the men conduct
their own balloting and that all organization expenses be paid
by the men instead. of the company
Mettam testified that either the editor of the Esso Refiner, the
plant paper, or the local personnel managers customarily gave news
releases to the local press, but that he'was unable to find out who
had released the. article in question to The Bayonne Times, the only
local newspaper published in Bayonne. He testified further that he
The respondents argue in their brief that "The men knew the Plan as an agency was
out but they had had collective bargaining so long that it was hard for them to realize that
the Company would not deal with them under the present set-up." This , we are convinced,
was not the true state of affairs . While the representatives may have realized that the
Company would not deal with them "under the present set-up," they were of the opinion,
at the same time, that the Plan as it then existed could continue if company support
were withdrawn.
'STANDARD OIL COMPANY - - 37
telephoned the , publisher of The Bayonne Times and complained
:about publication of the article. The publisher suggested that the
.Company might, if it wanted to, draft a correction which the news-
paper would be glad to print., Mettam, according to his own testi-
mony, replied in substance that 'he did not care to do this, and the
matter was dropped. Since the evidence shows that the employee
representative officers, as well as the editor of the Esso Re fi?ier and
the local personnel managers, were active in` giving stories to the
newspapers, the inference is justified, and we affirm the Trial Exam-
iner's finding, that the story was given either. by a company repre-
sentative or by an employee representative. The article, of course,
. clearly corroborates the finding that the employee representatives
received the impression on April 23 ,and 26 which has been stated
above '' More significant, perhaps, is the fact that with knowledge
of the publication of the article, which Mettam testified was con-
trary to the Company's position, be consented to allow the article
to remain uncorrected although offered an opportunity to correct it
by the publisher. The conclusion is justified, and we find, that the
general manager of the New Jersey Works was content to allow this
newspaper article to be circulated and read widely by the employees
so that they would receive an impression which the Company now
contends is a false one, but, which, we are convinced, was exactly the
impression that the Company intended the employee representatives
and the employees generally to receive.
Indeed, near the close of the April 26 meeting, upon an almost
unanimous vote, the employee representatives voted to appoint a com-
mittee to, conduct, a- referendum among the employees as to whether
they were satisfied to retain the "present plan"'until May 1938. It is
significant that this proposal was adopted, and the language of the
'referendum agreed upon, after Humphrey had spoken, in detail at
this meeting and had used language which the Company now con-
tends was equivalent to a notice of disestablishment of the Plan. A
connnittee of 11 representatives, froiri all 3 plants, was selected to
carry out this referendum.
When asked why it was necessary to form another organization at all,
if it was the opinion of the employee representatives that the elimina-
tion of financial support would be sufficient, Combined Secretary Coyle
testified that -since the employees were now required to furnish their
own financial support another -organization had to be formed and a
constitution and bylaws adopted to provide for such support. This
testimony, was not co:itradicted at the hearing and is supported by
The article was not received in evidence to indicate that what was attributed to the
Company therein was, by the more publication , necessarily true.
`38 DECISIONS OF':NATIONAL LABOR " RELATIONS BOARD
other circumstances. 'We,are"convinced-and find, as did the Trial Ex-.
aminer, that the drafting of the constitution and bylaws and the adop-
tion' of a new name were regarded as -merely formal requisites, and
-that this was done by the officers and representatives of the Plan.
Much of the meeting'of April' 26 consisted of discussions among the
employee representatives of the points they intended taking up with
repesentatives of management at the "informal" dinner-meeting to be
"held on April 28. Humphrey testified that he presumed that these
-discussions among the representatives, held while he was absent during
the afternoon of April 26, were with reference to what questions might
,be raised by the employee representatives at the April 28 meeting as to
wages, hours, and working conditions. He offered no adequate expla-
nation as to why the employee representatives should discuss such
matters on either the 26th or the 28t1i, or why the Company should
permit them to do so on company time 'and property on the 26th, in
view of the fact that the employee representatives were, allegedly, no
longer such at that time.
There was a noon recess between the morning and afternoon sessions
of the April 26 caucus, and it was then that Harry Field, counsel for
the Bayonne Association in this proceeding, first entered the picture.
Employee Representative Jones met Field during the noon hour and
brought him to the conference room, where six or seven representatives
were present. Field was, and still is, an hourly rate wage earner, a
lead'burner, at the Bayonne plant. He had studied law at night while
working in the refinery and was admitted to the New Jersey bar in
1935, since which time he has taken a certain amount of time off froth
the plant without pay during working hours in order to handle legal
matters. He has never acted in a legal capacity for the- Company.
Jones suggested, and the men present accepted, Field as their attorney.
McMillan told Field on April 26 that in his estimation they were going
to have to draw up a constitution and bylaws for an association. Field
suggested that they come to his office and that he would discuss it with,
then there. They said they would come the following night.28
Some members of the committee appointed oil April 26 to draft a
ballot,,and perhaps some non-members. (seven or eight men in all) met
in Field's office in Bayonne on the night of April 27. Field advised
them to draft a constitution and-bylaws before they conducted a refer-
endum.29 The committee decided to report his recommendation to the
entire group of representatives and asked Field to cove to a caucus
28 Beginning with September 1937 and for some time thereafter Field was paid for his
services as counsel for the Associations. For his services up to September 1937 he made no
charge and received no compensation. -
21 The committee had intended to conduct the referendum as indicated, an affirmative
vote to be regarded by them as a ratification of their status as employee, representatives,
and thereafter to prepare the constitution. and bylaws.
STANDARD' -OIL COMPANY -39
--which they had arranged . for the next day to state his views . There.
was also some discussion in Field's office as to the language of the
-referendum , and it was agreed in 'substance that thereunder the -em-
ployees would ;be-asked whether they were satisfied to go along with
the present representation plan , without financial support from the
Company.30
The employee representatives were let off from work about 11
- o'clock on the morning of April 28, which was the usual time in past
.years in connection with the annual combined joint conferences and
dinners . Prior, to the meeting with management at the Newark
Athletic Club that afternoon , however, the employee representatives
of the three refineries met in a caucus " of their own at the Club.
-Combined Chairman McMillan there reported what had taken place
in Field's office- the night before. Combined Secretary - Coyle took
notes.on what occurred at this caucus , and. these notes indicate, with
substantial accuracy what took place: Field suggested the drafting
of bylaws to be submitted to the employees for their approval or
disapproval . - That the employee representatives still regarded them-
selves as acting as such is - plain from what was said at the meeting.
-Thus , Frank Spears, chairman at Bayway, said, according to Coyle's
notes ,32 "'As long as the Co. will recognize us we are still representa-
-tives_as there is no others to represent the men now ." Brennan said
that the representative body was "still legal ." In response to a
question from another employee representative , Field stated that-
the representatives could continue to function ' as. such "if no one
questioned it or raised it complaint ." While Representative Eckert
remarked that "the men in the plant thinks that the present plan is
out," Spears said that the "Purpose (was) to save this plan-in the
right way" and ". .. the Co . will recognize us," "while Representa-
-tive Hedley said that they could function "as is '? and get out a
ballot "stating the minor changes . as soon as possible." Eckert said
that--the. proposed bylaws "would'be about the same, with changes
pointed out ," and Brennan said that the -representatives "can carry
on until Ave change our organization ." During the discussion, either
Field or one of the representatives said that an opportunity was pre-
sented "for us to take the necessary steps to improve if possible our
representation plan. " The representatives finally agreed to Field's
11 The notes which Combined Secretary Coyle kept of the meeting in Field's office are in
evidence. They indicate that the elimination of financial support was regarded as one of
the "necessary changes to comply with the Wagner Act." A comparison of the language of
the proposed referendum with the letter subsequently sent to the employees under (late of
May 19, 1937, accompanying the "referendum" ballot, set'out hereinafter, is significant.
81 The respondents object to the use of these notes . See footnote 25, supra, respecting
Coyle's notes of the April 26 caucus. -
32 Misspellings are corrected in the quotations which follow. - . -
'40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suggestion that- a bylaws committee be set up to prepare a consti-
'tution and bylaws.33
Following the caucus of the employee representatives, a meeting
between the employee representatives and representatives of manage-
ment, including parent company officials, was held,, lasting from 3: 20
to 5: 40 p. In. Included amon" the company officials present wereZ, I
Abrams, Smith, Ca:rringes, Mason, Mettam; the three plant super-
intendents, and others. Pierce, head of the Industrial Relations
Department of the parent company, was also present after 4 p. m.
.Metta.m presided. A- verbatim stenographic account'"of what was
said is in evidence.34
After calling the meeting to order, Mettam asked the "newly elected
representatives" to stand up to be introduced. They did so. Repre-
sentative Jones thereupon asked "How about the company represen-
tatives?", to which Mettam responded that there were none but that
the "people who would usually be here are here." Mettam then
referred to the April 23 meeting, stating that the company officials
there present had. "talked somewhat about what was in the wind-
any changes that might be necessary-where we found ourselves after
the Supreme Court decision"; that Abrams had there read a state-
ment setting forth the Company's position; and that he (Mettam)
had copies of that statement which he was going to read and dis-
tribute to 'those present. The "Statement of Policy" was read' and
distributed. Representative Mallon then said that he did not under-
stand Abrams to say ".that after Wednesday [April 28] we would be
on our own." Mettam replied that Abrams had said "that between
then and Wednesday we ought to be getting ourselves where we
would: be on our own." To this Mallon. said, "If we don't have the
assistance of the management, I don't. thilik we, can continue the
way we have .:. [it] seems to me the management is folding up
on us." Mettaan replied that the "management is not folding up on
.you." _ Jones said "After being together for twenty years, we don't
want any separation." He then proceeded to discuss in some detail
the Company's pension plan, after which Representative Eckert said:
". .. I know we are going to go on in the future in the same way
n This was an entirely new committee , the old committee of 11 . going out of existence.
The respondents contend in their brief that the Trial Examiner should have found that
by agreeing with Field ' s suggestion the representatives "sounded the death knell of any con'
tinuation of the Plan as a collective bargaining agency. They thereby recognized disestab,
lishment of the Plan ." We. do not agree . We have found above that the drafting of the
constitution and bylaws and the adoption of a new name were regarded as merely formal
requisites . The later events of April 28 and thereafter indicate quite clearly to us, as set
forth below , that the representatives intended to continue the Plan, in effect, with minor
revisions . This they succeeded in doing.
94 At a subsequent joint conference held on lone 7, 1937 , Mettam, in referring to the
minutes of the April 28 meeting , said that they had been destroyed . As a matter of fact,
they had not been destroyed and they were turned over , much later , by the Company to the
attorney for the Board.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 41-
we always have... ." Then followed further discussion of -the
pension plan.
According to the verbatim account of the meeting, at this point
Combined Chairman McMillan announced: "... At a meeting held
with the 'representatives, we decided by a 100. percent vote to formu-
late a committee: to draw up bylaws for an organization which- we
hope to form and invite the men in the three refineries to join.
Our intention is.to have this, committee draw up the bylaws for the
delegate body, have .them agree to the bylaws as we present them to
them, and then. conduct a vote among. the men in the yard asking
them if they are content to follow along as ,they have followed in
the past. The agreement with the Company will be the Representa-
tion Plan as outline(], with whatever objectionable features which it
now contains obliterated . . ." McMillan then referred to an article
in the Elizabeth, Daily Journal of the previous day which had praised
the Industrial Representation Plan and was derogatory to the C. I. 0.
and the American Federation of Labor. "In that article," said
McMillan, "they told of the advantages of employee representa-
tion . . . I am glad the article was.,published ... We certainly trust
that before this meeting is over, either Mr..Abrams, Mr. Smith or
Mr. Carringer, if you care to do so, will give some assurance to the
,representatives of your continued interest in them as representatives
of the working men in the plant."
A long discussion followed as to the payment of double time for
holidays, vacation plan, job-analysis sheets, minimum pay for shift
workers, and other similar matters. At the conclusion of this dis-
cussion, Company Vice-President Smith said : "... This has been a
real Joint Conference, I think. According to the Wagner Bill we
can't speak .of it as a Joint Conference, but I think it has been a real
presentation of the problems you want to bring to the manage-
rant." :.a Smith said that the Company was not leaving -the employee
representatives "off on a limb"; that the Company "will go . just as
far-as it legally.. can in carrying on our negotiations with you gentle-
men." Smith then said that he was pleased to hear McMillan say
that the employee representatives had agreed 100 percent "to carry
on with a plan similar to what we have been working on for the
past nineteen years. It wasn't a surprise to me, because I really
expected it." Smith then spoke of the advantages of the Plan, and
proceeded as follows: "As to just how far the management can deal
with you gentlemen as the result of the Wagner Bill, I-will say that
ac Thereafter, at several points throughout the meeting, similar matters were again dis-
cussed in some detail by company officials and emplo'ec representatives. During one of
these discussions; âfettan said that the point under consideration would be brought up at a _
Bayway joint conference later.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO\ S,:,BOARD
we have: to' respect-.the Wagner Bill.. _'Of course, we intend to
cooperate with you and give you our whole-hearted support. We are
going just as far 'as we can.. .." Smith then read a telegram from
Clarence J. Hicks, .formerly executive assistant to the president of
the parent company, who had been most instrumental in the institu=
tion of the Plan . in 1918., Smith referred to him as the "Daddy of
the Plan." The telegram stated that Hicks was unable to attend
because he was in Canada, and regretted his inability to celebrate
"this twentieth anniversary."
Representative Mallon then complained that top management of-
ficials had assured the representatives that "regardless of what the
Wagner Bill did, we were going to go on"; but that they were told on
April 23 that "after Wednesday you fellows are on your own." Mal-
lon added : "It. was just like that-`get the hell out' that's the way we
felt." Carringer responded that he was sorry Mallon came away
frolic the meeting of April 23 with the impression "that the company
was going to let the employee representatives -down." He said that
".You fellows were given every assurance that we would do every-
thing in our power to assist you fellows as much as we could, without
sticking our necks out:. To assist you to form any organization you
wanted to form to help continue industrial relations. That is.the
thought'we wanted to get over to you."" Carringer added that "every
one in the management wants to see industrial representation go
along 'as it has for the past twenty years. But we can't take-
any-steps that will let anybody point. to the negb organization as one that
has been 'dominated by the company. We can help you most by
doing the least, if you get what I mean, and I thinly you do. But
don't get any idea that this is any funeral party, or anything of that
kind. Please be' assured that we will do everything. We want to
see industrial representation continue, and we think you fellows can
set it up without anybody pointing to it and saying it has been coin=
pany- dominated :. ." [Italics added.]
Following some further discussion as to certain items of working
conditions, Representative Eckert said, ".. . we are not getting away
from this Representation Plan. We are going to carry on in the same
way . . . We represent the men in the plant today, the same as we
did yesterday . We had it for twenty years. We had a lot of fun.
Let's go on again and continue on." Representative Brennan said,
"Twenty years ago when Mr. Hicks came with a torch and handed
it to t.he'workmen, they took it .'your vision, Mr. Mettam, five
months ago was clouded and you had to drop the torch.36 Now we
as Brennan had reference here to what Mettam had said in January to the employee-rep=
resentatives to the effect that the Act would be held unconstitutional, but that in any event
the Plan would continue as it was regardless of the Supreme Court's decision.
STANDARD • OIL COMPANY 43
are going to- take up the torch. And if we take it up, please have
vision enough to see what might come .in." -
-Abrams then made a speech during which he said, "This, to me,
is the twentieth occasion of this kind ... I don't think we have laid
down the torch There has been a conscientious and sincere at-
tempt to do' the right thing in this Representation Plan, by all cori-
cerned .... Now we have come to the point where we have to break
up housekeeping, in a sense, and pass this thing on to you gentlemen,
and I just feel that there has been so much put into it, and it means
so much, not only to us, but to industry at large and society in gen-
eral, that this thing, which has been the closest thing to an ideal that
I know of, at least, that this thing be carried on in just the way the
founders would like it to be carried on .. . I would like to have had
I. Hicks] here and given him the opportunity to pass to you a message
of cheer and encouragement in this thing . . . We are just sold on
the idea that the thing is too strong, too solid, it is too sound, for it
to die. And we have given it to you gentlemen, to take it and carry
on, and we are going to get along in the future just as we have in the
past . . I just hope that you will get the strength and guidance to
go forward with this thing, so that in our lifetime, at least, we won't
see it die." [Italics added.]
After the applause which followed Abrams' speech, McMillan,
combined chairman of the employee representatives, responded as
follows : "I think the majority of the' representatives here are fully
in accord with the sentiment expressed by Mr: Abrams, 'and I think
the majority have expressed their confidence in the management and
in the plan." -
The meeting concluded with a speech by Pierce, head of the In-
dustrial Relations Department of the parent company, during which
he spoke of "a revival of the faith" and said that "it is up, to us to
adapt ourselves to new circumstances as they arise." He added :
."The methods change, but the.spirit and ideal carries on. I am much
encouraged by the comments made here on this Plan . . . It was'a real
privilege to be here at this twentieth anniversary, and.. .. I am sure
I feel as deeply grateful as [Hicks] does about the knowledge that you
are going to carry on."
The meeting adjourned at this point and was followed by the an-
nual dinner, for which a special issue of the Esso Refiner, printed
about April 21, had been printed and distributed by the Company.
This issue, which was in the form usually printed in connection with
the-annual conference-dinners, contained, on page 1, -photographs of
Mettam and of the employee representative officers, all of whom were
listed by their official titles. The last page,was headed "Seating
Arrangements-20th Anniversary Dinner of the Employee Represen=
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
fation Plafi . ." A- iesuiu of'the dinner meeting appeared in the
Elizabeth Daily Journal the next day under the head "New S. O. Labor
Group Forming," describing the occasion as marking "the twentieth
annual dinner of this sort."
From April 23 to about May 19, inany of the emplpyee representa-
tives spoke to numerous employees as to what was going on. The
several representatives tivho testified on the subject were. unanimous
in stating that the employees who spoke to them insisted that they
carry on as nearly like the old Plan as possible, but their testimony in
substance that they made it plain to the employees that the Plan was
in effect disestablished, is not supported by the record. The facts
recited, and subsequent events, indicate that exactly the contrary was
the case.;
Follo«-ing the April 28 dinner-meeting, the new constitution and
bylaws committee set to work to prepare a.constitution and bylaws,
in which work Field assisted. By May 6, however, the committee
members were still not in agreement upon the language of the same
and were concerned whether there -, as anything therein which might
be construed as illegal. One of the first articles of the constitution
they had drafted provided that "The object of this organization is
to perpetuate the desirable features of the industrial Representation
Plan . . ." It was further provided that "The presently elected
officers under the `Industrial Representation Plan' shall function as
the officers of this organization and the various representatives under
that plan, shall continue to so serve in this organization should the
employees of the plant so decide by their acceptance of this or-
ga.nization." Another provision was that the committee to conduct
the annual election of representatives should be "governed by the
rules and regulations adhered to by the present board of elections
under the present Representation Plan as near as possible, eliminat-
ing, of course, any Company participation." It was provided, further,
37 The most that can be said for the respondents' contention in this respect is that Bren-
nan, one of the representatives of the first division at Baywayy, apparently had some qualms
on' the subject. ' Within a few days following the April 23 conference, he prepared and
distributed in the first division a petition by the terms of which-the signers "hereby sanction
the right" of the representatives of the first division to bargain collectively for them "until
such time as we have a duly organized organization to take such matters off their hands."
Almost all- of the approximately 500 employees in the first division signed the petition,
between 200 and 300 within 2 days. Brennan admitted that these petitions were circulated
on the job during working hours. It is a fair inference, and we find, that foremen or other
supervisory officials were aware. of such distribution and made no effort to stop it. How-
ever. there was no distribution of similar petitions in other divisions 'at Bayway or at any
of the other refineries. The other representatives "thought I was crazy," testified Brennan.
Brennan'smotive in distributing these petitions was not because of such temporary doubt
as be may have had about the effect of the supreme Court decisions upon the Plan, but
rather because lie had been told by, a.company representative that until the situation was
clarified the employee representatives could act for the men only on minor rather than
major grievances, and Brennan became angry. While there were no joint conferences from
April 12 up'to this time, other than the dinner-meeting, the representatives acted for the
men on minor or individual grievances.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 45.
that "The recent. action on the `Wagner Act' by the United States
Supreme Court , makes it necessary to eliminate company contribution
or support and it is imperative that this organization be. self-support-
ing. Therefore , it will be necessary to fix a charge of 25 cents as
monthly dues . . ." While this was not the constitution as it
was. finally adopted, it is highly significant in that it clearly. il-
lustrates the, attitude and intentions of the officers of the Plan. The
Plan officers were not attempting to set up a new and separate or-
ganization but instead made it quite clear that the organization con
tained the same features as the old Plan , was guided by . the same
officers, and was, in effect, the old Plan with certain revisions that the
constitutionality. of the Act compelled them, reluctantly, .to make.
In the meantime, on the morning of April 29, Mettam informed
Vice-President Smith that the rank and file of employees "are anx-
ious to have some definite word from the management as regards the
relationships since the Supreme Court Decision regarding the. Wag-,
ner Bill." At Smith's suggestion, Mettam, on April 30, 'advised the
three plant superintendents to pass the contents of the Company's
Statement of Policy to the rank and file. On May 3, Bayway Super-
intendent Meacham, while not passing out individual copies to the
employees at Bayway, did post on that refinery's many bulletin
boards a ' copy of the notice, and on May 7 copies of it were dis-
tributed to each employee of the Bayonne and Eagle refineries, and
posted on the plant bulletin boards. It is cle• that the posting and
distribution was ample notice to the employees of the terms of the
``Statement of `Policy.'?
About the first of May, Charles C. Jones, employee representative
at Bayonne, had a conversation with Milton C. Hagen, Bayonne per=
sonnel head. With him at the time was Herbert Eckert, a Bayonne
employee representati ve, also 'active in - the ' admit istratioii of the.
Plan. This conversation was held in the Bayonne _personnel office
during -working hours. _ According to. Jones' testimony, Hagen asked
them how they were getting along with the -"new set-up." Jones
replied that they were having some disagreement on the language of
the bylaws. Hagen then suggested "Why don't you get hold of Mr.
Hicks [the, `Daddy of the Plan'] ? ' I will be 'glad to help' you out to
get him." Jones replied that he had considerable faith in Hicks,
that he knew Hicks had done a good job, `but that it might be a
mistake . to see Hicks, that it might be misunderstood in view of the
fact that Hicks was on pension from the Company. Eckert denied
the conversation with Hagen, as testified to by Jones. Hagen did
not testify. We are convinced, as was the Trial Examiner, that
Jones' testimony in this respect is substantially in accord with the'
facts. Immediately thereafter Jones', met' Field, told him what had
11
46 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken place in.the personnel office;'al d asked him what he'thouglit
about it. Field replied that Jones had done the right thing, .that it
tivould- be a. mistake to see Hicks.
Neverthe.l.ess, the bylaws committee did see .Hicks. It was stipu-
lated at*the hearing that McMillan, at committee meetings, made the
suggestion with -respect to having the bylaws presented to Hicks. It
insist be assumed, therefore, that neither Jones nor-Eckert had made
the suggestion to the bylaws:'committee following their conversation
with Hagen, and that the suggestion was first made by McMillan at
it meeting of the committee in Field's office.38 The members of the
committee thereupon discussed the -possibility of a visit to Hicks for,
assistance in drafting the constitution and bylaws. Spears, chair-
Irian of the-Baywaygroup -and a -member of the committee, w. as. asked
at the hearing. whether the fact that Hicks was formerly in charge
of industrial relations for the parent company was a factor in the
decision to see him. Spears replied that "it was for that reason we
wanted to-go to see him because we knew the experience that that man
had had in labor relations ..."
The committee agreed, a day or two prior to May 7, to see Hicks.
Thereafter, and prior to May 7, management officials were made
aware of the committee's plan to visit him. McMillan testified that
he had asked John Burr, personnel manager at Bayway, for Hicks'
telephone number in New York and that Bum replied, "if you are
going to call him, don't call over the plant telephone." The tele-
phone. call. was made from a public pay station at the plant gate.
Clarence J. Hicks had. been connected with the parent company
for many years as executive assistant to the president, in charge of
industrial relations generally. About 1917 or 1918, at the direction
of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., he had been actively associated with
Mackenzie King in setting up an employee representation plan at the
Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, a Rockefeller company. There-
after., as found above, he was the most active. in originating, estab-
lishing, setting up, - and otherwise assisting the Industrial Repre-
sentation Plan of the parent company at the New Jersey Works, and
performed.-similar work for the parent company in other operating
refineries throughout the - country. His entire connection with the
parent company was with respect, to labor relations generally, and
more than anyone else in the Company he was identified with its
Employee Representation Plans. He had attended various combined
joint conferences and annual dinners for many years since the incep-
tion of the Plan and was in fact the "Daddy of the Plan," as stated
by Carringer at the April 28 dinner.
11 Virtually all the meetings of the committee were held in Field's office, and none was
held on company property or time. Nor was any management or supervisory official present
at any of these meetings.
STANDARD- 01L .COMPANY- -47.
In 1933. Hicks retired from -the parent -.company -on pension, being
at that time approximately. 70..years of .age. A year or two there
-after.; -however, he became chairman :of the Board, of Trustees. of In=
'dustrial -Relations Counselors; Inc.... This organization;..hereinafter
referred to as Counselors, was established about; 1922, and incor-
porated. in 1926, - as a non-profit organization engaged mainly in
consultations and surveys of industrial relations for..single firms:
It is also. consulted.' by various governmental departments and other
organizations. 'Counselors was begun by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,
and for several- years thereafter was supported solely by him. As
time went: on, other. companies in addition - to the various Standard
Oil companies availed themselves of the services. of Counselors. and
made-- annual contributions to its support, with- the result that
although John- D. Rockefeller, Jr., continued -to be, it substantial
contributor, the amounts of his -contributions decreased. Because
it maintained i well organized industrial relations department of its
own; Standard Oil Company, the parent corporation, has not availed
itself of the services of Counselors to the extent that many other
companies have. and, accordingly, its contributions have been rela-
tively small.. Thus, in the year-1934, out of a total income to Coun,
.selors of $250,000,. the parent company, respondent herein, contributed
but $2,500.
Since 1934, the staff director of Counselors has been. Tudor H. A.
Tiedeluann,-who is also secretary of the organization. Before. that
time Tiedemann. had been an ,executive in the Industrial. Relations
Department of they parent company, working with Hicks. The gov-
erning body of Counselors is its Board of Trustees, consisting of seven
persons, of which Hicks is chairman, Tiecleniann is secretary, and
John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, and Walter C. Teagle, former president of
the parent company, are members. In the absence of -meetings of
the Board of Trustees, which axe infrequent,. the- directing body
of the organization is composed of an Executive Committee consist-
ing of Hicks; John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, and Teagle.
The-first visit to Hicks' office at Counselors was made by the con-
stitu.ion and bylaws committee on May 7.39 When they arrived at
Hicks'- office, they told him that they regarded him. as their friends
that'they-wished to retain all the benefits of the Plan, that they had
drafted a constitution and bylaws, and that they wanted Hicks'
assistance to be sure it was legal. They concluded by asking Hicks
whether it was. proper for then to talk to hiul on the subject and
assured him that the Company did not know of their visit. He
replied that there was no reason-why they could not consult him
30 The members of the committee making the trip were Spears , McGann , Kelly, Coyle,
Hurley, Mallon, and McMillan.
1
48 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL" LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the subject, that he would beglad to help them, and.Jthathehad
assisted in the preparation of ' constitutions and bylaw's for -other
organizations throughout the country. The committee members' had
with them a. 'draft of the constitution and bylaws they had prepared,
and data concerning constitutions and bylaws of two or three other,
organizations. Hicks called in Tiedemann, who thereupon discussed
with the committee various sections of the draft which the commit-
tee. had prepared. During this discussion Hicks was not present.
The 'committee told Tiedemann 'that the- men in the plant. had:aol_d-_"
them to hurry up and get- going,- that they wanted 'to have some-
thing which they ' could "sell" to the, men as quickly as possible.
Tiedemann said that he understood that the representatives had been
elected under the old- Plan and that it would look better some day
to a Labor Board -if they had another election. The committee
replied that they had no time for that, and that if the employees
voted on whatever was put up to -them that it would be the same
thing as an election.40 -The committee members spent several hours
at the office of Counselors in this connection,' and at the conclusion
thereof Tiedemann, who had taken notes, suggested that they return
later and that he would have it revised draft ready for them.
The committee returned on -May 12 and again spent several hours
with Tiedemann who had, in the meantime, revised the language of
the 'draft which had been left with him, and added' two or three-sec-
'Lions. One of these sections stated that "Nothing herein contained
shall restrict or qualify in any way the right of individuals or
minority groups, who are not members of this association or who do
not vote in its elections, to deal with the management directly or
with their chosen representatives." After he presented the revised
draft to the committee, Tiedemann suggested that they discuss the
.matter among themselves, and the committee accordingly did so,
spending about 2 hours on such discussion, after'which they returned
and indicated that the revisions were satisfactory. At the conclusion
of the conference, the committee asked Hicks if there was-any-charge
for his services or those, of Tiedemann. ' Hicks replied' in effect that
he_wa,s glad to be of assistance to the committee and that he expected
no compensation. None was paid.
On May 14 there was a meeting of the constitution and bylaws
committee with the other employee representatives off company prop-
erty where, after some discussion, the employee representatives of the
three plants voted to accept the constitution and bylaws as they had
been revised, making one minor change. At the same meeting the
40 These latter findings as to the conversation between Tiedemann and the committee are
based on Tiedemann's testimony. Compare what was said by Employee Representative
Eckert later at a combined joint conference held on August 3, 1937, infra.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 49
employee representatives made plans to send ballots to the employees
in which they should vote on the acceptance or rejection of the con
stitution and bylaws, and the continuance, in office, until April 1938,
of the employee representatives who had been elected under the Plan
in April 1937. This material was sent to the employees by mail
on May 19.
As' indicated hereinabove, up to April 29 at least, the employees
as a whole.had not received the impression that the Industrial Rep-
resentation.Plan had been disestablished. The respondent',s evidence
that on the moliing of April 29 Mettam informed Smith that the
rank and file of employees "are anxious--to have some definite word
from the management as regards the relationships since the Supreme
Court Decision regarding the Wagner Bill," tends to bear this out.
If, as- is contended, it had been made plain to the employees before
that date that the Plan had been disestablished, there would have
been no anxiety about "some definite word." As a matter of fact,
as found herein, the impression they received was that the Plan
could continue' if company support were, withdrawn and minor re-
visions made.
An article in. the Elizabeth Daily Jouvnal of May 11 entitled
"Workers of S. O. Speed New Plan" quoted. an announcement by
McMillan that the bylaws committee was drafting a constitution
and.-bylaws, for the "proposed new collective,bargaining organiza-
tion," and described McMillan as- having "served as chairman of the
combined elected delegates to the now dismantled management-
sponsored employee representation set-up." The article stated-that
the "new organization". would replace the Plain "outlawed" by the
Act. On May 14, the May 1927 issue of the Esso Refter° was dis-
tributed to the employees at the New Jersey Works. This issue
contained a copy of the Statement of Policy, a copy of an editorial
entitled "The Company and Its Workers," which had appeared in
the April issue of The Lamp and was similar to the Statement of
Policy, and -also an article, being the lead story on page 1, entitled
"Twentieth Anniversary Dinner Held," which set out a summary
of what had occurred at the April 28dinner-meeting. The material
sent to the employees by the employee representatives on May 19
consisted of a letter containing a ballot and a copy of the proposed
constitution and bylaws. The ballot stated, "Do you approve of the
plan of the [Here was inserted the name of the particular refinery]
Refinery Employees Association prepared and recommended by the
Committee of Employee Representatives?" The letter was as
follows :
Owing to conditions brought about by the Wagner Act, -the
management of our company has been obliged to withdraw
481039-42-vol. 43-4 -
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
from participation in- of financial support to the Employee
'Representation Plan which has been in successful operation in
this . company for nineteen years. Hence, the, representation
-plan [41] for'us--as employees will will cease to existunless the
employees decide that it be revised so as -to meet fully all legal
requirements.
- Believing that the majority of the employees of this refinery
desire to carry on collective bargaining arrangements as similar
as possible to those which we enjoyed under the old-- reptesenta-
tion plan, the representatives -of the employees who were .elected
in April, 1937, have drawn up and herewith submit for your
approval or rejection a new -plan of employee organization.
The name of the proposed plan is The [Here was-inserted the
name of- the particular refinery involved] Refinery Employees
Association. We trust that you will read the copy of the pro-
posecl constitution and general rules which is handed you-here-
ith, and make your decision after careful consideration in-N-
your own personal interest and that of your fellow employees..
Realizing that such a plan must have an organization to start
out with, we, whose names appear below, who are the representa-
tives elected by you' at the last election under the old plan, are
willing to carry on until the next annual election which would
be .due in April 1938 provided that is the desire of the majority
of the employees.
We earnestly hope that our proposals have the approval of the
employees of this refinery. We propose. that an election by
secret ballot to determine the choice of employees in these mat-
ters be held from Monday, May 24 to Friday May 28 ....
Here followed the details of the referendum. The letter con-
cluded with the names of all the representatives of the 'partic-
ular plant involved]
The Company was aware that the constitution and bylaws commit-
tee had been engaged in the process of drafting a constitution and
bylaws and in setting tip the Associations, and a copy'of the referen-
dum material recited was seen by Dlettam at or about the time it was
41 The respondents in their brief contend that "obviously" the representatives meant
"industrial representation" by the use of this term, and that this portion of the letter makes
it clear that-the Thin was out and that collective bargaining as a method under employee
representation was out unless the employees wanted it." The respondents are again relying
on the nice 'but unrealistic distinction we have discussed above. It seems obvious to us
that the representatives in drafling this letter meant all three terms-used in the first two
paragraphs, that is. "the Employee Representation flan," "the representation plan," and
"the old representation plan," to mean the same thing, namely : "the Employee Representa-
tion Plan which has been in successful operation in this company for nineteen years." It
seems even more obvious to us that the employees receiving this letter so construed it.
;_ ±': STA\'I)A'RI) 011 - CODZPA-NY -5f
mailed to the employees.42 -l.Iettain was asked it the hearing whether
the Company had made any effortto make it- plain tothe employees
generally,, up to or after the time the elriployees had voted on the
constitution- and bylaws, that the Associations were not a- revision
or amendment of the Industrial Representation Plan. He answered,
"Not that I know of."
-
It was stipulated -at the hearing; and we find, that the preparation,
distribution, casting, collecting, and counting of the ballots was -off
,company property, on the employees' own time, and that all costs
of balloting were paid by several employees who were later reimbursed
by the Associations, which also paid the other expenses in connection
with the referendum.' Election details were handled by an election
committee of several employees who had been appointed by the
employee representatives. A total of 7,160 wage-earner employees
were eligible to vote at the 3 plants. Over 86 percent of them cast
their ballots. Approximately 94 percent of the votes were in the
affirmative. _ These figures were reported by the election committee
to the 'management on the, morning of May. 29, and within a few
days thereafter the results were formally certified to the Company
by the election committee: at the 3 'plants.
E. The Associations; the contracts; events from June 1937
The Associations as set up constituted on the whole merely ,minor
revisions of the Plan. Such differences as there were had to do largely
-with the difference in name, the elimination of financial support from
the Company,43 and the fact that meetings of the employee representa-
tives, other than meetings with represeiitafives of ^ management at
joint conferences and combined joint conferences, were held off com-
pany Property-44 The core of the Plan, the joint conference procedure,
was retained.45 An equal number of employee representatives and
management representatives attended the conferences, the manage-
ment representatives consisting of the same persons-who had acted as
such under the Plan. Each group had equal voting power. The
plant superintendent continued to preside as chairman at joint con-
ferences, and Mettam, the Works Manager, at combined joint con-
^ John Burr. personnel head of the Bayway plant. testified that he saw a copy of the
constitution and bylaws at the time they were being mailed out to the employees or several
days before .that date.' He testified that copies, of the referendum material were "easily
available to, everyone who might have any interest in them" ; and that it was his recollection
that one of the representatives told him in effect, "Here is something in which you may be
interested."
*' A check-off was subsequenfly granted.
444.Employee representatives had met'by themselves off company property from time to
time under the Plan.
The respondents and Associations in their exceptions and briefs point to other differences
between the Associations and the flan.' They are either discussed herein or we find then
to he only negligible differences.
+s Even the same designations , "combined joint conference ," "joint conference," and
"divisional conference," continued to be employed. - -
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ferences.46 Except for the fact that the Associations paid for, the,
printing, the minutes of the joint conferences and combined joint
conferences continued) _to be prepared and distributed in substantially
-the same way as before, the distribution -being through the medium
of the company boxes which were placed just inside the plant gates,
which boxes Were also used for the distribution of The Lamp, parent
company publication, and the Esso Refiner, the Delaware Company
paper.47
The. selection of employee representatives continued substantially
as it had under the Plan. There. Were the same voting divisions, and
the same requirement that one representative would be elected for
each ^150.men in each=division,°the only difference -being-that-there -was
a minimum of 1 representative instead of 2 for each division. As
under the Plan, the representatives were required to be employed in
the division from which elected. There is one difference in that under
the Plan they lost their status as representatives automatically if they
left the Company's employ or if they-were transferred from the divi-
sion from which elected, while under the Associations this action was
discretionary with the governing body. The annual elections con-
tinued to be held during the month of April as under the Plan, and
were conducted in substantially the same way that they had been.
As under. the Plan, the Association officers were selected not by the
employees as a. whole but by the employee representatives. As indi-
cated above, the employee. representatives, who had been elected under
the Plan in' April 1937, had) providedl in the. referendum material
sent to the employees and in the constitution and bylaws, that, if
approved by the employees, they were to continue in office as such-
representatives until the next annual election in April 1938. Thus
there was no, opportunity for the. employees to vote affirmatively oil..
the referendum without at the same time accepting and continuing
in office, until April 1938, the same representatives who had been
elected under the Plan in April 1937.48
The grievance procedure provided for under the Plan and that
conducted under the Associations was virtually the same. The job
of the representative, his rights, his duties, and his relationship with
his constituents, remained substantially unchanged.
40 While under the Plan these persons automatically assumed the chair, and under the-
Associations they were elected as chairmen, in practice the election of the chairmen under
the Associations was generally regarded as a formality. At joint conferences held at the
Bayway Refinery after June .1939, however, the plant superintendent and an employee rep
resentative alternated as chairman at the subsequent ;joint conferences there held.
49 These boxes were also used for the distribution of the Employees News, a New Jersey
Works publication which was started by the employee representatives in June and supported'.
by the Associations. -
48 The only way an unsatisfactory representative could be ousted was by a recall petitiom-
signed by 51 percent of all eligible employees of the division.
'STANDARD OIL COMPANY--' 53-
No appreciable distinction or break was discernible between the.
last joint conferences held tinder the Plan and the -joint conferences
and combined joint conferences which followed under the 'Asso-
ciations. The latter continued where the former had left off. In=
deed,, statements made- by the employee °.l°epresentatives and repre=
sentatives of management, at these meetings, indicated that they
recognized no distinction in practice.40
Early in June 1937 the Company agreed with employee representa-
tives to check "off Association dues and pay the money over to the
respective Associations. It was provided that this should be done
only upon written authorization from the employees, that the authori-
zations were subject to cancellation by the employees, and that the
Company could charge one-half cent for each individual deduction
so lnade. The first deductions were made on July 9 and continued
thereafter, the Company turning over to the Associations an average
of $2 per year per member, and deducting the agreed one-half cent
'for each dollar so turned ov-er.50 These deductions have constituted
the only financial support the Associations hak=e received since their
inception following the referendum previously referred to, except
for certain wage payments to Field and a limited amount of Asso-
ciation activit3i on company time and property set forth hereinafter.
All deductions have been made only upon the written authorization
of Association members who were listed as in good standing in the
respective Associations.5' '
The first combined joint conference held after the referendum was
on June Z. Statements in the minutes of this meeting indicate that
at least some of the employee representatives considered that this
combined joint conference. was but a continuation of the conferences
held under the old Plan rather than the first meeting held under the
Associations. Thus, according to the minutes, Manz referred to the
meeting of April 28, held just prior to the dinner, as a joint con-
ference, and Jones - said that he did not know that the April 28
meeting "was not a. legally constituted one," and that he had been
led to understand "that both sides were there in attendance and that
it was legal." Mettam, who presided, said that "as far is the con-
ference was concerned we were very careful not to call it a joint
.
"At the April 28 conference-dimmer, as already found, both sides' discussed numerous
items involving working conditions just as they had at previous combined joint conferences.
50 Dues were $3 a year. However. the dues deduction authorization cards contained a
provision to the effect that clues should not be collected when the am mounts in the treasury.
of the Associations exceeded $4,000 at the Bayway and Bayonne plants respectively and
$1,000 at the Eagle plant. Since these amounts. were often reached, an average of about
v 2 a year was collected from each of the members in dues.
11 Testimony was offered at the hearing that these deduction authorization and membership
application cards' were distributed during working hours on the job. However, such circu-
lation as took place on the job was not extensive and the record does not support a finding
that foremen or other supervisory employees had knowledge of such distribution.
54 DECISION'S"' OF NATIONAL 'L"ABOR RELATIONS'"BOARD
.conference ." To Jones' rejoinder that questions were . discussed and.
minutes taken, Mettam replied' that the minutes "were brief minutes,
and afterward it was decided the best thing to do was to. destroy
them," although it subsequently developed that they were not de-
stroyed. There was considerable discussion at this combined joint
conference as to various items involving wages, hours, and working
conditions which had not been settled at earlier joint conferences
and combined joint conferences. On the whole, the procedure at this
conference followed exactly the same pattern as those under the old
Plan. One of the items under discussion was the drafting of a proposed
contract between'the Associations and the Company, and Mettam.
suggested that the representatives confer with the personnel managers
of the .three plants in order to formulate a contract to be presented
to management for consideration. A committee to handle the con-
tract discussions was almost immediately chosen from among the
representatives of the three plants.
Beginning on June 9, and for some time thereafter, the contract
committee met with the plant personnel managers jointly in order
to draft a contract for possible agreement. They held several meetings
in the following months and finally on December 8, 1937, after sub-
mission by the personnel managers to top management and by the
representatives to the membership of the Associations, the contracts
were approved and signed. ...These contracts, which were identical for
each of t'he,plan coiitiiiued in effect the same arrangement that had
existed between the employees and the C'ompany' under the Plan, plus
a few' minor 11:lpro\-ements in working conditions.- The contracts,
by their terms, renewed themselves, annually, and were still in effect
at the time of the hearing.
The first joint conference held at the Bayonne plant after the incep
tion of the Associations vas held on July 21, 1937, Plant Superinten-
dent Tiedemann presiding. He said at the outset: "This may be
considered . . a memorable occasion . . ..We' have had nineteen
years of successful operation and now we change our plan a little hit
and we have a little different plan, but I think it is with the same ship
and steering the same course, and I think we are going to arrive at the
same destination as we got in the nineteen years in the other-association
[Industrial Representation Plan] and I think you fellows probably
feel the way I do about it-that this is. really a most important period
"As will be seen 'presently, this was recognized in statements made by management
and employee representatives at joint conferences held after t`e signing of the contracts.
There had been no formal signed contract under the Plan. The original Plan booklet
published by the Company in 1918 and thereafter contained a copy of the "working agree-
ment" under which the works operated. This "working agreement," as modified in minor
particulars from time to time in subsequent joint conferences and combined joint con-
ferences, was considered the contract or working-agreement which existed. It was never
signed. .
STANDARD, 0IL .,CQMPANY 55
in our history because we are placing on trial here now at Bayonne, a
new plan-we are starting a new path and for my own part, I have
every. confidence that it is going to be to our mutual, benefit . . Now
we turn over a new page-we have no business-everything we have
now is new business." As a matter of fact, after this statement the
employee and' management representatives proceeded to dispose of
matters. which had remained unfinished prior to April 12, as they did
also at the joint conferences at each of the three plants.
During a combined joint conference held on August 3, 1937, over
which Mettam presided, Representative Eckert, who had been very
active in_the setting! up of the Associations, said:. we signed up
in Bayonne 3,100 men. You didn't give them any voice in the organi-
zation only by signing up for it. They had no voice as to who should
be officers .. , We, went out and got the members-there was only
one way to do it and that was to give them an idea, of selling them
something." Eckert added: "When we sold this to the men, organized
and set them up as members, what doi you think we told them, how do
you think we got them in?. Not just because we are the Standard Oil
Company-. It was like a salesman . . . We did the same thing :.. .
We wanted to get them into it ..."
At a combined joint conference held on .September. 15, 1937, over
which,Mettam presided, there was a discussion of the proposed con-
tract which was then under consideration by the contract committee
and the .personnel managers. Mettam. said:, "This staff about a new
organization, and so'on, I don't think it"is a new organization alto-
gether. We have had - industrial representation, we worked under
that plan for nineteen years, and I think that the quickness with which
the employees in the plant signed up as members and were willing_
to pay dues for, was 'a very strong indication of what the rank and
file of the employees in our plant thought about the organization,
if you want to call it that, but the industrial representation plan."
Continuing the discussion of the proposed agreement then under con-
sideration, Mettam added : "If somebody has gone out and promised
a lot of stuff, they have done it on their own, and they certainly.
can't expect the management to turn around and be .. . Santa Claus,
just for the purpose of making something good that somebody without
any .. responsibility° promised them . ." Representative. Brennan
said: ". .. you,as our chairman, when you. were in the caucus room
upstairs, told us you were .100 percent behind representation. What
was behind that move we will forget ..." 53
During a joint conference held at Bayway on September 28, 1939,
Representative Phillips said: ".. . we have had' this representation
plan for twenty years ..."
I Brennan was here referring to a statement made by Mettam at, the March 12, 1937,
combined caucus of employee representatives, referred to supra.
56 DECISIONS"OP NATIONAL, LABOR RELATION S BOARD
Other alleged, support furnished the -Associations by the Company
involves Harry Field' and certaiii Association activity on company
time and-property. Although not an employee representative, Field,
as attorney for one -or more of the Associations, attended many joint
conferences, and in many instances received -for the time so spent
his regular pay as an employee of the Company. Field had also been
so paid for his attendance at the joint caucus of the employee repre-
sentatives on the afternoon of -April 28, 1937. It is apparently the.
position of the Company that these payments, or solve of them, were
made in error, and that in any event the records produced at the hear-
ing s cow merely that Field received.a full clay's pay on dates when
he attended certain joint conferences; that it. was the custom to permit
some of the men to vary their hours somewhat, and that it is hence
not clear that in fact Field was paid by the Company for the time
spent at joint conferences. The record, on the whole, does not support
the Company's contention in this respect. We affirm the Trial Ex-
aminer's finding that the Company paid Field his regular wages for
his time spent at many, although not all, joint conferences and at the
April 28 caucus, with knowledge of the use to which the time was
put, and thus contributed support to the Associations.
The only testimony concerning activity of the Associations on coin-
pany. time and property for which the Company is properly charge-
able occurred in April 1941 at the Bayonne plant. During that month
two employee representatives circulated a petition among the em-
ployees in the plant concerning a proposal involving a change in
hours. We agree with the Trial Examiner' that this petition was-
widely circulated during working hours among the men in the plant
in sufficient numbers and under such circumstances that it may be.
fairly inferred that the company foremen were aware of its distribu
tion, and we so find. Nothing was clone to curb this activity. .
F. Concluding findings .
The respondents contend that the Delaware Company, effectively
disestablished the Plan and that the Associations were created by the
employees as new and independent organizations, free from employer
interference and domination. We do not agree. It is unnecessary
to repeat here the indicia of domination of the Plan, as found in de-
tail above. The respondents admit that the Company initiated the
Plan and' furnished it various forms of support, and that the contin-
uance of the Plan after July 5, 1935, was in violation of the Act. From
the effective date 'of the Act until after the constitutionality of the
Act was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the respondents admittedly
took no steps to disestablish the Plan or to apprise the employees that
they proposed to cease their interference with the choice of bargain
mg representatives. - ' '
STA\DARI) OIL COMPANY 57
The effects of employer coercion; inherent in the establishment and
maintenance of a- company-dominated organization, can be dispelled
-only by the re-creation of conditions in which genuinely -free choice
can be exercised. To this end it is essential, if an ostensibly new
organization is set up, that there be "a complete break between the two
unions and a disestablishment of the objectionable U111011,1 154 and that
.the employees be "effectively and tministakably informed.of such ac-
tion."`'' The respondents contend that the Delaware Company dis-
established the Plan and clearly informed the employees of its action.
From our above findings-.regarding the Statement of Policy, theiAn-
pression it created in the minds of the employee representatives, and
the subsequent actions of the respondents, the representatives, and
the employees, we conclude that the respondents did not disestablish
the Plan or give effective notice thereof.
The Associations were established and first administered by repre-
sentatives and officers elected under the Plan. The Associations were
merely minor revisions of the Plan. They were so intended by the
representatives and, in effect, were so described to the employees. Thus,
during a period in which the respondents had done nothing effectively
to reestablish a condition of freedom, the Associations succeeded the
illegal Plan with strong indicia of connection between the two. In
-these circumstances, the mass of employees, conditioned by 19 years of
denial of their right to self-organization,51 could reasonably have
assumed that the respondents favored the Associations as they had
favored the Plan. "Timorous habit" 51 firmly molded by 19 years of
domination consequently nlay well. have dictated the employees' choice
of the Associations. It is the circumstance of clear connection between
the Plali and the Associations in the absence of restored neutrality
that is most persuasive in the case. -The coincidence of these factors
es Magnolia Petroleum, Co. v. A'- L. N. B., 115 F. (2d) 1007 (C. C. A. 10). Thus, courts
have receguized the necessity of "wiping the slate clean" (N. L. R. B. v. Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 808 U. S. 241) ; "clearing of decks" (Westi-nghouse Elec-
tric & Affg. Co. v. A'. L. R. B.. 112 F. (2d) 657 (C; C. A. 2), affirmed, per euriant, 312
U. S. 660) ; "absolute and public cleavage between the old and the new" (Western Union
Telegraph Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (2d) 992 (C. C. A. 2) ) ; clearing the field "of the
original illegal growth," thus rendering it "suitable for sowing the seeds of an undomi-
nated body" (E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Al. L. R. B., 11.6 F. (2d) 338 (C. C. A.
4)) ; washing out "the virus of control" (N. L. It. B. v. II. E. Fletcher Co., 108 F. (2d)
459 (C. C. A. 1)). .
65 Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra.
See Sperry Gyroscope Company, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., July 3, 1942. 10 L. R. R. 689
(C. C. A. 2), where the Court stated that the influence of "twenty years of uninterrupted
company, domination of a single union . . . does not suddenly evaporate . in the
absence of proof of-powerful counter-forces." In this connection it is pertinent to note
that an extremely large percentage of the employees of the New Jersey Works "grew up"
with the Plan, the average'length of service of the employees being more than 15 years.
sN. L. R. B. v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Ine., 303 U. S. 272, quoting Matter of Pacific
Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engincincn, 2 N. L.
R. B. 431.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
infects the ostensibly new organization with the "virus of control." as -
The choice of the employees was not "as free as the statute demands." 59
We find no merit in the respondents' contention that the Plan. was effec-
tively disestablished- and that the Associations were created by the
employees as new and independent organizations, free from employei
-interference and domination.
The respondents further contend that "there is no justification" in
the record "for treating the Parent Company as an `employer' in this
-proceeding.", Section 2 (2) of the Act defines the term "employer" as
including "any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly
or indirectly ." Since the parent company is not the immediate
employer, its responsibility depends-upon whether, after July 5, 1935,
it acted in the interest'of the Delaware Company, the immediate enr-
ployer, in connection with the facts hereinabove found.
The parent company is a bolding company solely, with approximately
250 subsidiary corporations. The Delaware Company is a wholly
owned subsidiary. The parent company originated and -instituted
the Plan at the New Jersey -Works at a tune .when it operated the
Works. It transferred title to and the operation of the New Jersey
Works to the Delaware Company in 1927, whereupon the Delaware
Company ratified the labor policies of its-predecessor and continued the
same, including the Plan, in effect. The evidence is clear that in mat-
tors- of basic policy, including especially financial policy and' labor
policy, the Delaware Company looks to the' parent company for advice,
assistance, and approval.
The respondents argue in their brief, in effect, that the parent com-
-pany cannot- be found to be an employer within the meaning of the -
Act, unless there is evidence of action taken .by representatives of
the parent company in connection with the series of happenings upon
which we rely, and that there is no such evidence in the instant case.
With respect to labor relations, the parent company, primarily through
its Industrial Relations Department headed by Frank W. Pierce, con-
stantly keeps in close touch with the labor relations of its subsidiaries
and lays down basic policies which the operating companies are ex-
pected to follow, and do follow. It is, true that a certain measure of
local. autonomy remains in the operating subsidiary,. but this exists
within the limits of the policy already laid down, except in infrequent
cases where the parent company, because of peculiar local conditions,
approves of some variation. The employees at the New Jersey. Works -
have looked upon, and still look upon. the parent company as deciding
these general policies. The distribution by the parent company of
The- Lamp, official publication of the parent company which is dis-
°% N. L. R.B . v. H. E. Fletcher Co., supra.
sD 1[e.stitt ;/ house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B ., .sutp ra.
STANDARD *OIL COMPANY' .59
tributed to-the employees of the New Jersey Works and the employees
of other subsidiaries, has fostered this feeling ' on. the part of the
employees. In The Lamm and other booklets issued by the parent
company to the workers at the New Jersey Works, they are therein.
referred to. as.'the.employees of the._Standard..011 system generally.
Statements made by the officials of the respondents have tended to
instill in the minds of the employees at. the New Jersey Works the
unity of control and decision in these matters . Thus, for example, at
a combined joint conference held on May ,7, 1936, according to the
,official minutes of the conference , Abrams "referred particularly , to
the Management of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) [the
parent company] which decides the general policies." From time
to time, at various conferences, employee representatives, dissatisfied
with decisions of local management on particular matters,-have indi-
cated their desire to take them up, with officials of the parent company.
Upon the impending passage of the Act in 1935, officials of the Indus-
trial Relations Department of the parent' company appeared at a
combined Joint conference and discussed the-possible effect of the
passage of the Act upon the Plan. In 1937, .following the Supreme
Court decisions of April 12 upholding the constitutionality- of the
Act, the language of the Statement of Policy was not agreed upon
until Pierce had been consulted. It was. Pierce, too, who exhorted
the employee representatives at the April 28 dinner-meeting to con-
tinue With the Plan, in revised form. Indeed, throughout the exist-
ence of the Plan, even after the transfer of the New Jersey Works
to the Delaware Company, and during the existence of the Associa-
tions as well, officials of the parent company, including Pierce, ap-.
peared at various combined joint conferences and joint conferences,
thereby making it plain, and enforcing in the minds of the employees,
the unity of interests, control, .and direction. Minutes of combined
joint conferences and joint conferences continued to be sent by the.
.Delaware Company to the parent company bath tinder the Plan and .
the Associations. The proposed contracts with the Associations were
submitted to Pierce before they were signed.
We find that the .relationship between the respondents herein is
such, and the officials of the parent company have so acted, as to -
.constitute the parent company an "employer" within the meaning,
of that term in the Act, of the employees here involved.60 The re-
spondents' contention in this regard is without merit. -
We find, as didctthe Trial Examiner, that the respondents, by the
above described course of conduct, have dominated. and interfered
with the administration of the Industrial Representation Plan, and
With the formation and administration of the Bayway Refinery Em-
See Bethlehem Steel Conipany v. N. L. P. B., 120 P. (2d) 641 (App. D. C.).
'60 DECISIONS` Of, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees' Association, the Bayonne 'Refinery Employees' Association,
and the Eagle Refinery Employees' Association, and have contrib-
uted support thereto, and have thereby interfered with, restrained,
.and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.61
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents' set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with. the. operations. described in Section I
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom, and to
take certain affirmative action' which we find necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondents have d olninated and interfered
with the administration of the Plan and with the formation and ad-
ministration of the successor Associations and have contributed sup-
port thereto. Since•the^Pianno longer exists as such and there appears
to be no likelihood of its reestablishment, no order will be made herein
with respect to it. The effect and consequences of the respondents'
domination, interference wvith,_ and support of the Associations, as
well as the continued recognition of the Associations as the bargaining
representatives of their employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to
the free .exercise by the employees of their right to self-organization
and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing. Because of the respondents' illegal. conduct, the Associations are
incapable of serving the employees as a genuine collective bargaining
agency. Moreover, the continued recognition of the Associations
would be obstructive of the free exercise by the employees of the rights
guaranteed to them by the Act. Accordingly, we shall order the
respondents to cease and desist from recognizing the Associations, or
any reorganization thereof, as the representatives of any of the em-
ployees at the New Jersey Works for the purpose of dealing with them
a' Certain allegations of the complaint are not supported by (tile evidence. The record
does not support the allegation in paragraph 14 of the complaint that the respondents
"(lid solicit, permit and acquiesce in-the solicitation of membership in said Associations
during working hours" ; nor does it support the allegation that the respondents "did and
continue to interfere with the administration of the respective Associations by holding
out to employee representatives of the Associations greater prospects of promotion to
supervisory status than to other employees."
STANDARD OII;'•COMPANY 61--:
concerning grievances; labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,: hours of
employipent,'or other conditions of employment, and to disestablish.
the Associations as such representatives. G2
Under the facts found, the contracts w itli'-the :Associations -consti-
tuted and were part of the unfair labor practices. We shall there-
fore order the respondents to cease and desist from giving effect to the.
contracts with the Associations signed on or about December 8, 1937, -
as well 'as to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, and any superseding contracts which may now be. in force.
Nothing herein shall be taken to require the respondents to-vary those
wages, hours, seniority, and other such substantive features of their
relations with the employees .themselves which the respondents have
established- in, the, performance of the contracts or as they have been
extended, renewed,.inocli:fied,,sup.plemented, or superseded.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following : -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Congress of Industrial Organizations, Bayway Refinery Em-
ployees' Association, Bayonne Refinery' Employees' Association, and
Eagle Refinery Employees' Association are labor organizations, and
Industrial Representation Plan was a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the
IndustrialRepresentation Plan, arid- with the formation and admin-
istration of Bayway Refinery Employees' Association, Bayonne Re=
finery Employees' Association, and Eagle Refinery Employees' Asso-
ciation, and by contributing support thereto, the respondents have
engaged in, and as to the Associations are engaging in, unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of- the Act, the re-'
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning..of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6' The respondents in their brief contend that disestablishment and withdrawal of recog-
nition from the associations will not effectuate the policies of the Act because, i nter elia,
"front the inception of the Plan in 1918 and continuing after it ceased. to exist through
the Associations to the date of the hearing, there have been no labor disputes at the New
Jersey works.. . The Supreme Court ruled on a similar contention in N. T,. R. B. v.
Newport, News Shipbuilding an(I Dry Dock Co., cited supra, in the following language:
"The Court below agreed with the respondent that, as the Committee had operated to
the apparent satisfaction of the employees; as serious labor disputes had not occurred
during its existence; and as the amen at an election held under the auspices of the Com-
mittee had signified their desire for its continuance, it would be a proper medium and
one which the employer might continue to recognize for the adjustment of labor disputes.
The difficulty with the position" is that the provisions of the statute preclude such a dispo-
sition of the case . . . In applying the statutory test of independence it is immaterial
that the plan had in fact not engendered, or indeed, had obviated, serious labor disputes
in the past."
. 62 DECIS1ONS u F - VAT1GIAL' LABOR'.-RELATIONS BOARD
4. The' aforesaid ,unfair labor, practices are unfair labor practices,
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2. (6) and (7) of.
the . Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ents, 'Standard Oil Company -and Standard Oil Company of New
Jersey; and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns,-
shall::
L. Cease and desist from:
(a)' Dominating or interfering with the formation or administra-
tion of Bayway Refinery Employees' Association,. Bayonne Refinery
Employees' Association, and Eagle Refinery Employees' Association,
or any labor organization of their employees, and from contributing.
support to Bayway Refinery Employees' Association, Bayonne Re-
finery Employees' Association, and Eagle Refinery Employees' Asso-
ciation, or to any other labor organization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with Bayway Refinery
Employees' Association, Bayonne Refinery Employees' Association,
and Eagle-Refinery Employees' Association, or any reorganization or
successor thereof, as representatives of-any of their employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances,-labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts, or supplements thereto
or modifications thereof, or any superseding contracts, with Bayway
Refinery Employees' Association, Bayonne Refinery Employees' As-
sociation, and Eagle Refinery Employees' Association;
(d) In any other manner interfering With, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaiiiiiig or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds. will.
effectuate the policies of the Act':
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Bayway Refinery Employees'
Association,' Bayonne Refinery Employees'. Association, and Eagle
Refinery Employees' Association as the representative of any of the
employees of the New Jersey Works for the purpose of dealing with,
the respondents concerning grievances. labor disputes, wages, rates.
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 63
completely disestablish said Bayway Refinery Employees'. Associa-
tion, Bayonne Refinery Employees' Association,' and Eagle Refinery
Employees' Association as such representatives;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the plants
of the New Jersey Works It Linden,. Bayonne, and Jersey City, New.
Jersey, and maintain for a period of at least sixty .(60) consecutive
days from the date of posting; notices to their employees stating that
the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are
ordered to cease and desist'in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of-
this Order, and that they will take the affirmative action set forth in
paragraph 2 (a) of this Order.
(c) Notify the Regional Director. for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. GFRARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.