Wanda Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 363 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
Wanda Petroleum Company and Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO.
Cases 23-CA-3345 and 23-CA-3394
June 15, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On February 10, 1970, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that Respon-
dent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal as to those allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to certain portions of the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Wanda
Petroleum Company, Houston, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order as so modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Frank
Pedron, M. J. Burney, T. P. Yarbrough, Leroy
Stockton, and James R. Biddle to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed."
363
2. Substitute the following for the first indented
paragraph in the notice:
WE WILL offer Frank Pedron, M. J. Burney,
T. P. Yarbrough, LeRoy Stockton, and James
R. Biddle immediate reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights or privileges,
and make them whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of their discharges.
' Respondent 's and the General Counsel's exceptions directed to the
credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner are without merit The Board
will not overrule the Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless a
clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are in-
correct On the entire record, such a conclusion is not warranted herein
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A
3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON . Trial Examiner : Pursuant
to a charge filed on May 21 , 1969, by Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Union, the
complaint in Case 23 -CA-3345 issued on July 16,
1969, alleging that on or about May 8, 1969,
Respondent interrogated an employee concerning
the extent of union organization and discriminatori-
ly discharged employees Frank Pedron , M. J. Bur-
ney, T. P. Yarbrough , and Leroy Stockton. The
complaint alleges further that on June 2, 1969,
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Jewel O.
Wagstaff. Pursuant to a further charge filed on July
22, 1969 , by the Union , the complaint in Case
23-CA-3394 issued on August 22 , 1969, alleging
that on or about May 8 , 1969, Respondent inter-
rogated and threatened an employee and dis-
criminatorily discharged James R. Biddle. On Au-
gust 25 , 1969, the Regional Director issued his
order consolidating the two cases . In its answer
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
A hearing was held before me in Houston , Texas,
on October 7, 8, 9, and 14 , 1969. At the close of
the hearing oral argument was waived and the
parties were given leave to file briefs which have
been received from the General Counsel and
Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Texas corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business located at
Houston, Texas, where it is engaged in the purchase
183 NLRB No. 45
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and sale of liquefied petroleum products. In the
course and conduct of its business operations dur-
ing the 12-month periods prior to the issuance of
the complaints, Respondent sold and shipped goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from its
places of business in Texas directly to points
located outside the State of Texas and during this
same period Respondent purchased goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped directly to its places of business in Texas
from points outside the State of Texas. Respon-
dent's Houston, Texas, terminal, known as the
Pierce Junction terminal, is the only facility in-
volved in this proceeding. I find that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdic-
tion herein is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Introduction
Respondent purchases, transports, stores, frac-
tionates, and delivers liquefied petroleum gas
products' to various industrial and domestic
wholesale customers throughout the United States.
It has three major terminals located at Pierce Junc-
tion and Hainesville, Texas, and Breaux Bridge,
Louisiana, at which it operates fractionating plants
and has truck and rail terminal facilities.
At the Pierce Junction terminal Respondent em-
ploys fractionating plant operators, pumpers who
operate equipment for the transfer of gases,
truckdrivers, and mechanics who maintain and
repair operating equipment and motor vehicles.
In 1968 Ashland Refining Company entered into
an agreement to acquire the stock of Wanda
Petroleum . On or about May 1, 1969, the transac-
tion was completed, and Wanda became a subsid-
iary of Ashland. In early 1969 a number of changes
were made in the top management of Wanda. C. F.
Montgomery became chief executive officer and
John Holland became executive vice president.
Respondent had not previously employed a person-
nel director, but in February 1969, John Mays, a
member of the Ashland personnel department,
became manager of personnel for Wanda.
' These are propane, butane, ethane, N-butane, isobutane , commercial
butane, natural gasoline, and various mixtures of these products
2 Although Mays testified that pumpers had averaged 66 hours a week
working 5 days one week and 6 the next , comparisons of the pumpers'
wage rates before and after the change in accordance with the formula
2. The change in wages, hours, and benefits
After Mays assumed his functions with Wanda,
he discovered that Respondent had no basic wage
structure in terms of fixed classifications or
progressions , that the wage rates paid by Respon-
dent were quite low, and that its employees were
regularly scheduled to work long hours. After study
Mays recommended that wage schedules be set up
for various classifications with fixed starting rates
and a progression schedule which would take em-
ployees to the top of their rate in steps over a
period of 3 years. He also recommended that the
scheduled hours worked by the employees be
sharply reduced.
Mays' recommendations were adopted, and
Respondent decided to place the new wage and
hour schedules in effect on May 1. Since pumpers
had been working 12 hours a day, 5 days a week
before May 1,2 it was determined to reduce their
workweek to a 40-hour week in two stages with the
first reduction to take place on May I from 60
hours to 48 hours a week. A further reduction was
anticipated at an undetermined date. The hours of
other employees were adjusted , along similar lines.
At the same time, Respondent sought to slot em-
ployees into the new wage schedules so as to keep
their weekly pay within $5 of what it had been be-
fore. Thus, in the case of the pumpers, Respondent
computed the gross pay earned by each pumper
under the former work schedule, and then assigned
the employees the rate in the new wage schedule
which, with a 48-hour week, would result in weekly
gross pay within $5 of that figure. As a con-
sequence, some employees received increases of up
to $5 in their gross pay and some received slight
decreases in similar amount.
At that time Respondent also extended to Wanda
employees fringe benefits previously available to
Ashland employees. These included hospitalization
insurance , life insurance, a thrift program, pen-
sions , vacations, and holidays. These represented
substantial improvements over the fringe benefits
previously provided the Wanda employees.
In implementing the reduction in the scheduled
workweek of employees, Respondent contem-
plated an increase in its employee complement and
recognized that until additional employees could be
hired and placed on their jobs, overtime work
above its scheduled workweek would be required
from its existing employees.'
On April 23 or 24 , in preparation for the changes
Respondent held two meetings of assembled em-
ployees at the Pierce Junction terminal to explain
to the employees the changes in their hours and
benefits which were about to take place. At the
used by Respondent in establishing new wage rates for the pumpers sup-
ports the testimony of several pumpers that they previously worked a 60-
hour week
Mays testified that it took 2 or 3 weeks to hire the needed employees
During that period some employees may have worked 7 days a week
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
meeting attended by the pumpers and operators,
Vice President Holland and Mays addressed the
employees.
They described the changes in wages and hours
in some detail , explaining how the new wages were
determined, but did not inform employees of the
rates each would receive .4 They also described the
fringe benefits that were being made available to
the employees . They explained that the changes
would require the hiring of a substantial number of
new employees and asked for the help of the em-
ployees in making the transition without disruption
and confusion . They sought to persuade the em-
ployees that the changes were for the benefit of all
the employees and were prompted by a desire for
safe work practices.
They also informed the pumpers that Respondent
was looking forward to a further reduction to 40
hours in their workweek and assured them that they
would not take less money home then than under
the interim schedule.
3. The beginning of union activities
Following the meeting a number of pumpers
asked their foreman, "Red" Carroll, what their new
hourly rates would be.5 Carroll did not know what
each pumper was to be paid, but told them what
maximum , minimum , and intermediate rates were
for their classification. He also told some of them
that he thought they would receive $2.50 an hour
which was the minimum rate for the classification.
Pedron, a pumper, sought to call Mays at his office
in downtown Houston to learn his rate, but was un-
successful in his attempts to reach Mays.
In early May a group of pumpers discussed
among themselves dissatisfaction stemming from
the changes and one of them commented that they
needed a union but did not know whom to go to.
Stockton indicated that he did. On May 6,
Stockton, Biddle, and Daniels, all of whom worked
as pumpers on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, visited
Union Business Agent Childs at his office. Childs
told them to talk to other employees and find out
how many were interested. Later that day Stockton
returned to Childs' office to obtain blank authoriza-
tion cards. That night when Stockton reported to
work around 11 p.m. he brought the cards with him
and gave most of them to Biddle and Daniels,
because he worked at the rail siding where he came
in contact with other employees to a lesser extent
than they did. That night Biddle solicited signatures
from a number of employees, obtained signatures
on perhaps a dozen cards, and gave them to
Pedron, a pumper who worked on the day shift,
after they were signed.
' According to Mays, he told the employees that they could check with
him individually after the meeting to learn their rates or wait until they
received their paychecks He testified that some six or eight employees
came up to him after the meeting and got this information Although some
employees testified that Mays did not offer to tell employees their rates at
the conclusion of the meeting, I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict,
365
The following morning , when they reported for
work, Pedron and Yarbrough, pumpers on the day
shift, obtained cards and also sought to solicit
signatures.
4. Respondent's knowledge of union activities
The evidence is in dispute as to when Respon-
dent became aware of the union activities of the
pumpers. Several witnesses for the General Counsel
testified to incidents indicating that Respondent's
supervisors became aware of the union activities
before the afternoon of May 8 when the first
discharges alleged to have violated the Act took
place. On the other hand Respondent's supervisors
denied in whole or part the employee versions of
these incidents and testified that their first
knowledge of the union activities came after the
discharges occurred.
Both Biddle and Pedron testified that on the
night of May 6 and during the day on May 7 blank
union authorization cards were left in sight on a
desk used by the pumpers in the pump shack at the
terminal . Neither made any claim that he observed
supervisors looking at the cards . Biddle also
testified that during the night of May 6 and early
morning of May 7 he solicited employees to sign
union cards in the yard area at the terminal and
made no effort to conceal his activities, again con-
ceding that he could not say that any supervisors
saw him.
Pedron testified to a more direct incident involv-
ing Pumper Foreman "Red" Carroll. According to
Pedron on May 7, he walked up to Carroll as Car-
roll entered the pump shack, told Carroll they were
taking up donations, asked him if he wanted to con-
tribute, and held out a union card toward Carroll.
Pedron testified that Carroll replied that he could
not participate, but did not take the card. Pedron
did not know whether Carroll looked at it.
Stockton testified that on May 7 or 8 as he was
finishing his shift at the rail siding , at or around ',
a.m., Carroll came to the pump shack at the rail sid-
ing.1 Stockton left the shack with his relief man,
Koonce, to show him work in progress. According
to Stockton there was a union pamphlet on the
desk, which he found Carroll reading upon his
return to the shack. Stockton testified that either
Stockton or Koonce asked Carroll what he thought
of the pamphlet. Carroll asked them how many em-
ployees were in on it, and Stockton replied that the
pump department had gone 100 percent for the
Union. According to Stockton, Carroll replied that
they should keep him out of it. Although apparently
still employed by Respondent, Koonce was not
called as a witness.
as it is clear that a number of employees remained uncertain of their in-
dividual rates after the meeting
' Carroll testified that he imagined every pumper questioned him about
his rate
'
There are shacks used by pumpers both at the terminal and the rail sid-
ing
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Night Terminal Manager Jones, who was present
at the terminal during a portion of Biddle's shift,
Carroll, and other supervisors denied any
knowledge of the union activities at the time in
question. Carroll conceded that Pedron stopped
him at one point and told him he was taking up
contributions. However, according to Carroll, he
said he had to go and did not have time to stay, and
he left. He testified that he did not know what
Pedron was talking about at the time and that
Pedron had nothing in his hand. While Carroll ini-
tially conceded only that he might have gone to the
shack at the rail siding at the time mentioned by
Stockton, he ultimately testified he observed
Stockton tell Koonce about the work in progress
and leave, without having any conversation with
Carroll. Carroll denied seeing a union pamphlet
there , questioning Stockton or Koonce about the
Union, or having any conversation with them about
the Union.
Biddle, Pedron, and Stockton all had an obvious
interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and the
absence of testimony from Koonce to corroborate
Stockton is also a factor entitled to weight in deter-
mining the credibility of Stockton's testimony. Yet
Pedron and Biddle impressed me in their testimony
set forth above as careful in sticking to the objec-
tive facts and refraining from any claim that they
were observed by supervisors despite the obvious
opportunities for embellishment. Although
Stockton's testimony goes much further in inculpat-
ing Respondent, Carroll's denials and his testimony
as a whole have convinced me that as between
them Stockton is to be believed. As I have noted,
Carroll initially conceded only that he might have
been present at the rail siding , but in denying the
specific conduct attributed to him by Stockton,
Carroll gave a version of tthe events which clearly
placed him as present at the time described by
Stockton. Moreover, on cross- examination as to his
knowledge of the union activities , Carroll appeared
to be an uncomfortable witness and gave some an-
swers which raised considerable doubt as to his
candor. Carroll conceded that he saw union cards
in the shack at the rail siding a few days after May
8. When asked if these were the first cards he saw,
he replied, "Yes sir, first one I ever had in my hand.
First one I ever read." When asked later if he had
any inkling that there was union activity, he replied,
"I hadn't seen a card or any pamphlets." Carroll
was also asked if he recalled a group of some em-
ployees telling him that they were going to the
OCAW hall or take some other action toward form-
ing a union . Carroll replied, "All I recall that they
said , if they didn 't raise their wages, cut their hours
down, that they would see if they couldn't get-"
r Yarbrough testified as to three conversations with Carroll about the
Union on May 7 His testimony was denied by Carroll and indirectly by
Thornton as to one of the conversations Yarbrough also testified as to a
conversation with Summerlin which was denied by Summerlin Although
Yarbrough impressed me as generally truthful, and Carroll did not, there
Carroll's answer became inaudible, and he was
asked, "They would what?" He replied, "They said
they was going to see if they couldn't do it them-
selves if the Company didn't do it." It is difficult
not to conclude that Carroll's denials of knowledge
of union activity were accompanied by mental
reservations and that he was about to concede that
he had heard employees discuss their intention of
seeking a union but caught himself to state his
testimony in a less damaging , if more meaningless,
fashion.
Apart from the weaknesses in Carroll's testimony
which lead me to discredit his denials of knowledge
of union activities, there are infirmities in the
testimony of Terminal Manager Langford and Per-
sonnel Manager Mays which cause me to discredit
their denials of knowledge of union activities before
the discharges. As will be set forth below, there are
significant conflicts in their testimony as to the
discharges of five employees on May 8 which raise
general doubt as to their credibility. In addition,
Langford, like Carroll, appeared ill at ease under
cross-examination and, with respect to his
knowledge of the union activities, gave testimony
which leads to the conclusion opposite to that to
which he testified. Although Langford testified that
he had seen no union cards or pamphlets before the
discharges, when asked when he first became aware
that something might be going on, he testified that
he went up to the pump shack at the terminal on
the afternoon on May 8 as the discharged em-
ployees were leaving the terminal and saw some
union cards that had been thrown on the desk.
Although he denied that he looked at them or
picked them up to see what they were, he testified
that he knew then that there was something going
on because he saw the cards there. He testified that
he did not think that they could have been raffle
tickets, but did not pick them up to read them
because he did not care that much about it; how-
ever, he assumed they meant a union. This
testimony becomes plausible only if Langford had
prior knowledge of the union activities, contrary to
his denial.
Accordingly, I have credited Biddle, Pedron, and
Stockton in their testimony set forth above, I have
discredited Carroll's denial of Stockton's and
Pedron's testimony, and I have discredited Carroll,
Langford, and Mays in their denials of knowledge
of the union activities before the discharges oc-
curred.
Although additional testimony was offered by the
General Counsel to show Respondent's knowledge,
I have not relied on that testimony in reaching this
conclusion.'
was little in the testimony or demeanor of Summerlin or Thornton to cause
me to reject their testimony I find it unnecessary to the result herein to
resolve the credibility issues raised by ttheir testimony
One additional incident was described by Wagstaff, a truckdnver, to
establish Respondent 's knowledge generally and specifically as to his ac-
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
5. Mays' visit to the pump shack on May 8
On the morning of May 8 Mays, whose office is
elsewhere, came to the terminal to talk with em-
ployees. According to Mays he did this because in
his experience when there are changes in working
conditions, employees have a feeling that their em-
ployer is taking advantage of them and he wanted
to see how changes were working. Mays testified
that he had heard through supervisory personnel
from all over Respondent's system that employees
were upset and concerned about their hourly rates
"but not to a point of being critical." According to
Langford 2 or 3 days earlier , he had reported to
Mays that the employees were unhappy and that it
was necessary for Mays to explain things to them to
see if he could quiet them down.'
After first talking with some of the management
and office personnel, Mays went to the garage
where he spoke with mechanics and tiremen. Ac-
cording to Mays, the employees in the garage
seemed dubious about the new system but not un-
happy, and after approximately half an hour he left
the garage and went to the pump shack. He arrived
there sometime between 9 and 10 a.m. and
remained there for the rest of the morning. Pedron
and Yarbrough were the two pumpers on duty at
the time. They continued to perform their duties,
going in and out of the pump shack a number of
times during the morning. While in the pump
shack, sometimes separately and sometimes
together, they spoke with Mays about the recent
changes. Although there are some variations in
their testimony, particularly as to the intensity of
the discussion, Pedron, Yarbrough, and Mays were
in general agreement as to the subject matter of
their discussions.
Mays explained the changes in hours and benefits
to Yarbrough, who had been on vacation at the
time of the April 24 meeting. Both Pedron and Yar-
brough complained about having to come to work 6
days a week rather than 5 as before the changes,
and questioned Mays' claim that they had received
wage increases because their take-home pay had
not increased. Mays tried to explain that the reduc-
tion in hours without a loss of pay amounted to an
tivity Wagstaff testified that on May 7 at 7 or 8 in the evening he signed a
union authorization card at the request of a pumper whom he first
identified as Bettis, and then as Biddle, while Night Manager Jones
watched over his shoulder Jones denied that he watched Wagstaff sign the
card , and Biddle did not mention this incident in his testimony Company
records show that Wagstaff was not at the terminal at the time at which he
placed this incident, and Biddle was not there before 10 45 p in on any
night during the period in question It is no more likely that the incident oc-
curred on May 6 otherwise as described by Wagstaff, for the record shows
that the cards were not brought to the terminal until around I I p m on
May 6 1 do not credit Wagstaff as to this incident
" According to Langford the report was not based on the unhappiness of
specific employees but on general grumbling
° It appears that they also expressed concern that they would suffer
further when their workweek was reduced to 40 hours Mays testified that
he could not recall whether he told them their rates would be increased
again at that time but that he assured them their take-home pay would not
suffer
367
increase and that they had also received a substan-
tial increase in fringe benefits, but Pedron and Yar-
brough remained unconvinced.' They also com-
plained because the top rate established for
pumpers was below that established for operators in
the fractionating plant although the starting rate for
both classifications was the same. Mays explained
that the operators' job was more difficult and
responsible. Yarbrough complained that the rates
paid pumpers by Respondent were below other
area rates.10
During the course of the morning Burney entered
the pump shack on two occasions. On the first of
these occasions he joined in the discussion in
progress concerning the pay raise and fringe
benefits. Burney complained specifically about
being required to clock out for an hour lunch
period while the pumpers took only half an hour.
According to Mays, Burney was not as critical as
Pedron and Yarbrough but was bitter and was "way
out of line in getting involved." Mays testified that
Burney also complained that he could make more
money working elsewhere.
Later in the morning Burney returned to the
pump shack following an exchange with Garage Su-
pervisor Thornton over the return of a gear puller
which Burney had borrowed from the garage a few
days before and had failed to return.
Burney entered the pump shack to question Mays
about the availability of tools. Carroll, under whose
supervision he had been placed a few days earlier,
was present. As Burney started to speak to Mays,
Carroll told Burney that he had already told him to
come to him if he needed anything. Burney then
told Carroll to be quiet because he wanted to talk
to Mays directly about it." Carroll said nothing
further, and Burney asked Mays why tools that
were necessary for his work were so hard to obtain.
Mays said that the tools should not be hard to ob-
tain and that he would check into it.
Mays left the pump shack about noon and went
to lunch with Terminal Manager Langford and
Thornton. After lunch, between 1:30 and 2 p.m. he
returned to the pump shack and spoke further with
Yarbrough and Pedron. The discussion was basi-
cally repetitious of what had been said earlier that
10 According to Mays, Yarbrough also said he could get a better rate as a
laborer nearby, and said he would not work at the rate Respondent was
paying , but did not say he was quitting
" Burney conceded that he became a little "rash" and that he believed
he told Carroll "Just hush and let me say what I am going to say " He did
not think he used profanity but might have According to Carroll, Burney
said, "Mr Carroll I am not trying to go over your head " He testified that
he and Burney were both a bit agitated Carroll did not consider that Bur-
ney had insulted him , but it appeared to Carroll that Burney was going over
his head
According to Mays, Burney butted in on a conversation " which had a
particular light because I was having senous thoughts and so forth," and
when Carroll attempted to answer Burney 's question, Burney told Carroll
"Keep your damned mouth shut I am talking to Mr Mays," and pointed
his finger at Carroll when he said this Although I find, as Burney conceded,
that he told Carroll to be quiet , his testimony that he believed he did not
use profanity is corroborated by Carroll's version , and I credit Burney's
version over that of Mays'
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
morning. Mays left after 15 minutes to half an hour.
At some point after lunch Mays also spoke to the
employees in the fractionating plant, finding no
particular unhappiness there.
Around the time that Mays left the pump shack,
Yarbrough called Stockton at home and suggested
to him that if he came to the terminal he might be
able to talk to Mays about his rate and other mat-
ters. Stockton came to the plant and went to the
pump shack.
6. The May 8 terminations
Shortly before 3 p.m., the scheduled time for the
end of the day shift, Langford told Carroll to notify
Yarbrough, Pedron, and Burney that they were ter-
minated. Carroll gave notice of the terminations to
Pedron and Yarbrough in the pump shack in the
presence of Stockton. They left the pump shack to
go to Langford's office to inquire about the ter-
minations . After they left, Carroll encountered Bur-
ney and also told him that he had been terminated.
Pedron, Yarbrough, and Stockton, together with
Farris and Watson, also pumpers, went to Lang-
ford's office, where Safety Supervisor Thomas was
also present . Yarbrough and Pedron asked Lang-
ford why they were terminated. Langford replied
that Respondent did not like their attitude.12
Stockton then spoke up. According to him, he said,
"If you are going to terminate them for this, you
will have to terminate me, too," and Langford said,
"O.K."13 According to Stockton there was no
further mention of his termination.
Ashton Thomas, Respondent's supervisor, who
was present in Langford's office, testified that
Stockton said , "If they are fired, I quit ." According
to Thomas, Stockton then suggested that all the
pumpers leave, but Watson said they wanted to talk
it over. Thomas testified that Farris and Watson
asked if they were fired, and Langford told them
they still had jobs if they wanted to work.
According to Langford, after he told Pedron and
Yarbrough the reason for their discharges, Pedron
started to leave, and Stockton said , " I am going
too," to which Langford replied, "All right, good-
bye." Langford testified that as Stockton started to
leave, Stockton asked one of the others if he was
going, and Watson then asked Langford if he still
had a job. Langford told him that he did and that
Respondent wanted him to stay at work. Langford
testified that Stockton did not say he was quitting
but only that he was going, which he understood to
mean Stockton was quitting.
12 Stockton , Pedron , and Yarbrough so testified Thomas and Langford
testified that Langford replied because they were dissatisfied and their at-
titude
13 Pedron testified similarly Yarbrough did not recall the exchange
between Stockton and Langford
'4 Carroll testified that Langford had told him earlier that Stockton had
quit Langford testified that he told Carroll what had happened and that
they "would write him off too " According to Langford, if Stockton had
come to him later and said there was a misunderstanding, he would have
The employees left Langford's office, and Pedron
and Yarbrough turned in some gear that had been
issued to them. They left the terminal with
Stockton. After stopping at a nearby cafe for cof-
fee, they called Union Business Agent Childs, and
they went to his office. Burney also arrived there at
the same time and informed the others he had been
fired. After some discussion with Childs they all
returned to the terminal where Childs sought to
talk to Langford. Langford, however, said he had
nothing to say to Childs, referred him to Mays, and
asked them to leave. They left.
Later that afternoon or evening, Stockton
returned to the pump shack and told Carroll he
would be there for his regular shift that evening.
According to Stockton, Carroll told him he had
been terminated or that he had quit. He testified
that he told Carroll to "have it your way." Carroll
testified that Stockton told him he had changed his
mind and would be out on a regular shift that night.
According to Carroll he told Stockton he could not
work because he had quit, whereupon Stockton as-
serted that Carroll was terminating him, and Carroll
replied that he had terminated himself. 14
That evening after hearing of the discharges from
Yarbrough, Daniels, another pumper, telephoned
Carroll. Carroll asked Daniels to report to work at
3 a.m. rather than at 11 p.m. as scheduled, and
Daniels agreed. Daniels asked about Biddle who
normally worked the same shift as Daniels. Carroll
replied that Biddle had also been discharged.
Daniels then informed Biddle of his conversation
with Carroll. Biddle telephoned Carroll at home,
and Carroll confirmed the report. Biddle asked
Carroll the reason for his discharge. According to
Biddle, Carroll told him he was fired because of his
dissatisfaction and complaints. According to Car-
roll, he told Biddle he was fired because his work
was dropping off, and Carroll said nothing about
dissatisfaction or complaints.
7. The alleged interrogation by Thomas
During the early morning of May 9, after he re-
ported for work, Daniels had a conversation with
Safety Supervisor Ashton Thomas. Thomas asked
Daniels if he had signed "one of them things." Con-
struing this as a reference to the union cards,
Daniels replied that he was not going to lie. He told
Thomas he had signed a card and explained why.
Thomas told Daniels he could see his point and the
conversation ended.15
considered putting him back to work
11 Daniels so testified Thomas initially testified that he did not think he
had any discussion with Daniels concerning the Union, but then testified
that Daniels volunteered to him he signed a card " out of the blue" after
Thomas had asked him generally how things were going According to
Thomas, he merely told Daniels that signing a card was Daniels' business
and he could not say one way or the other I have credited Daniels , who was
still employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing , over Thomas
whose testimony impressed me generally as unreliable
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY 369
8. The discharge of Wagstaff
Jewel O. Wagstaff started to work for Respon-
dent as a truckdriver on November 21, 1968. Previ-
ously, he had worked for Robertson Tank Lines as
a truckdriver and had retired in September 1967
because of his health and his nerves. When he ap-
plied for employment with Respondent, he dis-
closed on his employment application that he had
had ulcers and wore an artificial limb because of
the• amputation of his left leg 6 inches below the
knee. However, he did not disclose that he had
retired from Robertson for medical reasons but
stated instead as the reason he left that job, "tired
highway."18 Langford, who hired him, was aware of
the amputation and that Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations disqualified Wagstaff for that reason,
but told Wagstaff that if he passed the required
physical examination he could go to work.
Wagstaff took the preemployment examination at
an industrial clinic, filling out a medical history
form for the doctor at the time. Although Wagstaff
disclosed his amputation and his prior hospitaliza-
tion for ulcers, he conceded when shown the form
on cross-examination that he did not disclose that
he had ever had heart trouble, diabetes, or a ner-
vous condition, although these ailments had led to
his retirement from Robertson and the form called
for their disclosure. He also omitted mention of the
causes of his prior hospitalizations other than ul-
cers. He conceded that he concealed some of his
medical history at the time of that examination. His
ailments were apparently not detected by the ex-
amining physician and, despite his amputation,
Wagstaff was given a certificate indicating that he
was qualified to drive subject only to the restriction
that he wear glasses. Wagstaff then began to drive
for Respondent.
Although Wagstaff testified that Night Terminal
Manger Jones observed him signing a union card on
the evening of May 7, I have not credited that
testimony. Wagstaff also testified that he dis-
tributed blank authorization cards to a number of
other drivers, but there is no indication that this ac-
tivity was known to Respondent.
On May 25, Ashton Thomas, Respondent's safety
supervisor, followed Wagstaff's truck and stopped
him to warn him that he had observed Wagstaff
violating traffic regulations. According to Wagstaff,
at that time he noticed that Thomas had two or
three union cards in his shirt pocket and asked
Thomas, "What did you stop me for, to sign one of
your union cards?" According to Wagstaff, Thomas
said no, and Wagstaff then asked Thomas to sign
one of his cards, producing them at the time. Wag-
staff testified that Thomas then got in his car and
left. According to Thomas, he had no union cards
in his pocket when he stopped Wagstaff, and he de-
nied Wagstaff's version of their conversation. He
testified that when he started to leave after
discussing Wagstaff's infractions with him, Wagstaff
said to him, "I am not signing any union card if that
is what you are after," and he replied that what
Wagstaff signed was none of his business but he was
simply interested in Wagstaff's driving safety.
Pursuant to established procedures, Wagstaff was
required to speak with Terminal Manager Langford
before he could drive again after being stopped by
Thomas. After discussing his infractions, Langford
told him to return to work and be careful.
According to Thomas, soon after he stopped
Wagstaff he learned of Wagstaff's amputation from
another driver." Thomas testified that he then
checked Wagstaff's employment application to see
if he disclosed the amputation on his application.
According to Thomas, he discovered that Wagstaff
had disclosed the amputation. He testified that after
seeing where Wagstaff had previously worked, he
wondered why Wagstaff had left Robertson, but did
not check with Robertson to find out, and called
Mays' office to ask if Mays was aware of the ampu-
tation.
According to Mays, when Thomas told him of
Wagstaff's amputation , he checked Wagstaff's per-
sonnel file and "turned green when I saw it because
it indicated heart condition, diabetes, nervous con-
dition, amputation of ... one leg just below the
knee." Mays believed that Wagstaff could not
qualify to drive under Department of Transporta-
tion rules, but decided that it would be best to have
Wagstaff take another physical examination to veri-
fy that these conditions existed.
The testimony as to what ensued is in some
dispute as to detail but not as to its basic outline.
On or about May 29 Wagstaff was relieved of his
driving duties and told he would have to take
another physical examination. Wagstaff took the
examination, this time disclosing his complete
medical history. He failed to pass the examination.
Mays then told him Respondent could no longer
employ him. Wagstaff asked to be assigned as a
pumper loading and unloading trucks, but Mays
told him that the pumpers were required to do a lot
of climbing and that, because of the hazardous na-
ture of materials handled, his physical disabilities
would bar him from that job as well.18
On June 15, Wagstaff obtained another job as a
driver hauling gasoline, diesel fuel, and other
18 On direct examination , Wagstaff testified that he indicated he had a
nervous condition on his application , but conceded when shown his appli-
cation on cross-examination that he had not revealed it
Ir According to Thomas he had previously noticed that Wagstaff limped,
but had not realized that his limp was due to the use of an artificial leg
" According to Wagstaff, Langford sent him to see Mays before he took
the physical examination , and when he went to Mays' office , Mays showed
him a copy of the letter Wagstaffs doctor had sent to Robertson at the time
of his retirement Wagstaff also testified that Mays gave him the name of a
specific doctor to visit for his new physical examination According to
Langford he told Wagstaff to return to the industrial clinic for another ex-
amination without naming a specific doctor and without sending him first
to see Mays According to Mays, he did not see Wagstaff until after Wag-
staff had taken the examination , he did not send Wagstaff to a specific doc-
tor, and he did not show Wagstaff the letter which had been sent to Robert-
son
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
chemicals. He was required to take a physical ex-
amination for this job, and passed it, but as in the
case of his initial examination for Respondent, on
his medical history form Wagstaff revealed only his
ulcers and his amputation. He conceded that he did
not believe he would have been issued a certificate
to drive if he had made a full disclosure of his medi-
cal history.
B. Concluding Findings
1. The May 8 terminations
The General Counsel contends that Pedron, Yar-
brough, Burney, Stockton, and Biddle were
discharged in order to undermine the incipient
union organizational campaign. The General Coun-
sel contends in the alternative that they were
discharged for having engaged in protected con-
certed activity in voicing their dissatisfaction with
the changes in their hours and pay. Respondent
contends that Pedron and Yarbrough were
discharged for their attitude displayed in their
discussions with Mays which Respondent viewed as
likely to affect the safe and proper handling of its
products by them. Respondent contends further
that Burney was discharged for insubordination,
that Biddle was discharged because of inferior
work, and that Stockton resigned and was not
discharged.1e Respondent further contends that the
complaints voiced by the employees did not
amount to protected concerted activity.
Mays and Langford both testified to the sequence
of events, as well as the considerations, which led
to the discharges. According to Mays, after his con-
versations with Pedron, Yarbrough, and Burney on
the morning of May 8, he went to lunch with Lang-
ford 'and Thornton, at which time he discussed his
experiences of the morning with them and told
them, "I was a little bit concerned about the at-
titude that they had." According to Mays, Thorn-
ton said that Biddle was in a similar position, and
he was discussed with the others. He testified that
at the conclusion of the lunch he decided that if he
could not work out anything that afternoon he
would recommend that they be discharged, and he
called Respondent's president at that time to make
the recommendation.20 Following this conversation,
Mays spoke further with Yarbrough and Biddle,
and, according to Mays, he found no reason to
change his recommendation as to them. He testified
that he again spoke to Montgomery by telephone
and repeated his recommendation that the four em-
ployees be discharged with which Montgomery
agreed. According to Mays, he then told Langford
to terminate the four employees and left.
"The General Counsel disputes the contention that Stockton resigned,
and assails the reasons advanced for the discharges of the others as pre-
texts
:" Although Mays ' testimony is not entirely clear, it appears that the op-
portunity to work something out applied only to Pedron and Yarbrough
_' Langford also testified that Mays had earlier told him he was going to
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Langford also testified that the discharges were
discussed at lunch. However, unlike Mays, he
testified that Montgomery was consulted only as to
the discharges of Pedron, Yarbrough, and Burney,
and that he, Langford, independently made the
decision to discharge Biddle. Langford also differed
with Mays as to the transmission of the final in-
struction from Montgomery, testifying that he be-
lieved he received the instruction to discharge
Pedron, Yarbrough, and Burney from Mont-
gomery's secretary who told him to terminate them
without telling him why.21 Although Thornton was
identified by Mays as present at the lunchtime
discussion, he was not questioned about it.
I find the discrepancies in their testimony as to
these events of considerable significance, particu-
larly in the light of the further discrepancies in their
testimony concerning these discharges set forth
below, and conclude that their testimony as to how
and why they decided upon the discharges cannot
be credited.
a. Pedron and Yarbrough
Pedron had been employed by Respondent since
November 1965. Until January 1969, he was a
truckdriver, and at that time he became a pumper.
Yarbrough had been previously employed by
Respondent for 3 years ending in 1965. In 1967 he
returned as a truckdriver and in April 1968 became
a pumper. Until their discharges, both had been
considered good employees.
Mays testified that his recommendation to
discharge Pedron and Yarbrough was based on the
fact that they were absolutely bitter and had an an-
tagonistic attitude. He testified that in his ex-
perience he had never encountered such a bitter
and cynical attitude toward plans that the Company
was trying to initiate to help the employees and the
Company. According to Mays, at lunchtime he was
hopeful that in further discussion he could persuade
them that Respondent had not taken advantage of
them and that even if they had not received an in-
crease in take-home pay, their benefits had other-
wise improved. However, according to Mays, in his
further discussion with them, their attitude
remained unchanged, and he concluded that they
should be discharged because of it.22
Langford testified that at lunch Mays told him he
had never seen anyone as bitter to the Company
and things in general as Pedron and Yarbrough.
According to Langford, he told Mays that it looked
like he would have to let them go. Both Mays and
Langford testified that they were concerned that
Pedron and Yarbrough might be so bitter that they
recommend their discharges and he joined in the recommendation
ss Mays testified that in his further talks with Pedron and Yarbrough, he
did not indicate that their jobs were in jeopardy, because he felt that if he
did, they would say that they would straighten out without any real change
in attitude
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
would cause an accident or contamination of the
products. However, both disclaimed any belief that
Pedron or Yarbrough would do so intentionally, or
that they were responsible for past contamination. 23
I am not persuaded by their testimony and find
otherwise. As I have found, on the morning of May
7 or 8, if not before, Carroll became aware of the
union activities among the pumpers, questioning
Stockton and Koonce as to the number of em-
ployees involved in the union activities and learning
that the pumpers were solidly for the Union. I have
also found that Langford was aware of the union
activities before the discharges took place. Whether
Mays knew of the union activity before coming to
the terminal or discovered it later in conversation
with Langford at the terminal is unclear , but it is
beyond belief that Mays did not learn of it in his
discussions with Langford concerning the attitude
of the employees.
When Mays came to the terminal he found no ex-
traordinary unhappiness among other employees,
but in his discussions in the pump shack he found
Pedron and Yarbrough steadfast in their dissatisfac-
tion with the changes in their hours and benefits
and impossible to convince that they were better
off as a result of the changes. Thus, Mays' inter-
views during the day on May 8 disclosed that the
most serious dissatisfaction was among' the
pumpers. Certainly to a man of his experience the
source of greatest dissatisfaction was identifiable
with the source of greatest pressure for union or-
ganization . Whether or not he had specific
knowledge of the individual union activities of
Pedron and Yarbrough, their persistence in stating
their dissatisfactions to him labeled them as em-
ployees likely to be equally persistent in efforts to
do something about their dissatisfactions.
These discharges were not treated as ordinary
discharges. Although Mays conceded that em-
ployees were normally warned before being
discharged, no warning was given them. Although
Mays and Langford had the power to effect the
discharges without approval from higher authority,
Mays found it necessary to discuss these discharges
with Respondent's principal officer before making
the decision final and to discuss them as part of
"picture" including Burney and Biddle, as to whom
varying reasons for discharge were asserted. The
discharges occurred precipitously, only 2 days after
the union activities started at the plant. The
discharges came at a time when Respondent was
seeking to expand its work force and was already
short of pumpers. Both Pedron and Yarbrough
were considered to be good employees, and there
was no cause to believe that either was responsible
for Respondent's operating problems.
Mays and Langford testified that they feared that
the dissatisfaction of Pedron and Yarbrough would
g'' Considerable evidence was adduced to show that during the spring of
1969, Respondent discovered grossly excessive contamination of its inven-
tory in storage Although Respondent believed that much of the con-
tamination was due to human error in pumping, it was unable to determine
371
lead to possible safety and contamination problems.
But Pedron and Yarbrough were aware of the dan-
gerous nature of the materials they handled, and as
the employees at the scene during the pumping
operations, they would be most likely to suffer
directly from any accident caused by inattention or
carelessness. Moreover, Mays' choice of time and
place to carry on an extended discussion, which ac-
cording to his testimony was often heated, can only
lead to the conclusion that considerations that ac-
cidents and contamination might result from
dissatisfaction of Pedron and Yarbrough were far
from Mays' mind during the morning and afternoon
of May 8. For Mays' own presence and his discus-
sions in the pump shack were as likely to cause in-
attention to their work as any internal unhappiness.
As Mays testified, the reports of dissatisfaction to
him indicated that it was general throughout
Respondent's system, and from his experience he
knew that any substantial changes in working con-
ditions were likely to be greeted with skepticism
and hostility. Such attitudes require experience
under the changes for their dissipation. Here no
chance was given Pedron and Yarbrough to gain
that experience by which to temper their initial
reactions. Further no opportunity was taken to
determine whether their attitudes had any impact
on their work.
It is axiomatic that an employer is free to
discharge an employee for any cause or no cause at
all as long as the discharge is not caused by union
activity. But when the cause advanced is attitude,
when the objectionable attitude is dissatisfaction
with wages and working conditions, and when the
dissatisfaction has already manifested itself in union
activity known to Respondent, attitude becomes no
more than a euphemism for union activity. Whether
Pedron and Yarbrough were reasonable or un-
reasonable in their response to the changes in-
stituted by Respondent, it was their right to seek
union representation if they so desired. I conclude
that it was the fact that the intensity of their
response identified them as likely to persist in that
effort which caused the decision to terminate them.
Accordingly, I find that their discharges violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. Burney
Burney started to work for Respondent in March
1969 as a mechanic repairing pumping and other
equipment. He worked under the supervision of
Garage Foreman Thornton until a few days before
his discharge, when he was placed under Carroll's
supervision. About a month after his hire, Mays
received reports concerning an aggravated assault
charge to which Burney had pleaded guilty. Mays
decided that Burney might be a risk and instructed
the cause of the contamination other than some caused by physical deteri-
oration of a well The contamination caused Respondent substantial ex-
traordinary expense
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 25
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Langford to discharge him. Upon being discharged,
Burney contacted Mays and offered to give him
references to explain the circumstances of the
charges. He also spoke to Respondent's terminal
superintendent, Davis, who told Burney he would
get the matter straightened out. Through the inter-
cession of Davis, Burney was reinstated after a day
or two.
Mays testified that Burney was discharged again
on May 8 for insubordination. According to Mays if
it had been a different situation, he would have
fired Burney on the spot when Burney told Carroll
to keep his "damned" mouth shut, but decided that
"as long as you keep these things between two peo-
ple, . . . you are better off," so he said nothing at
the time because there were others present. He
testified that he did not want to make a scene. Ac-
cording to Mays, "That was two cases of insubor-
dination," with reference to that incident and Bur-
ney's earlier interruption of his discussion with the
pumpers. However, he also testified that Burney's
joining in tthe complaints with Pedron and Yar-
brough was irritating but not a factor which cul-
minated in his discharge. Mays conceded that he
could have instructed Langford to terminate Bur-
ney without consulting Montgomery because it was
a clear-cut case, but it just happened to be in the
"picture."
Langford testified that at the lunchtime discus-
sion Burney's name entered into the conversation
because he was also bitter. Langford gave no other
reason for the decision to discharge Burney.
According to Carroll, Burney was a slow worker
and his work did not hold up well. Carroll testified
that he had not recommended Burney's discharge
but would have done so in time. He testified that
Langford told him that Burney was discharged
because of his inferior workmanship and everyone
knew that. When asked if the discharge of Burney
had anything to do with the incident on May 8 in
which Burney said something about going over Car-
roll's head, Carroll replied that the incident had
nothing to do with it, and would have had nothing
to do with his recommendation to terminate Bur-
ney.
I conclude that these varying explanations do not
reveal the true cause of Burney's discharge.
Although Mays testified that Burney was
discharged for insubordination, his testimony in
that regard is not supported by that of Carroll as to
either the circumstances of the alleged insubordina-
tion or the reasons for the discharge, and I have not
credited Mays' version of the alleged triggering in-
cident. Moreover, Mays' testimony otherwise with
respect to Burney's interruptions that morning ap-
peared patently strained to support a desired result.
Although Mays disclaimed that Burney's earlier
visit to the pump shack was a cause of his
discharge, he earlier characterized Burney as hav-
ing engaged in two cases of insubordination, with
obvious reference to the first visit as one of them.
Similarly he described Burney's second visit as im-
proper because it interrupted "serious thoughts" he
was having.
Unlike Mays, Carroll saw nothing in the incident
in the pump shack which would have warranted
Burney's discharge, and he testified that it had
nothing to do with Burney's discharge which was
caused, according to him, by inferior workmanship,
which everyone knew.24 While .it may be argued
that Carroll might not have known the reason for
Burney's discharge as he did not participate in the
decision to discharge him, it is of considerable sig-
nificance that as the supervisor to whom Burney
was allegedly insubordinate, Carroll saw no basis
for discipline in the incident.
Finally, Langford, who unlike Carroll par-
ticipated in the discussions which led to Burney's
discharge, mentioned neither insubordination nor
inferior workmanship in his testimony, but only
Burney's bitterness that morning in the pump shack
as the reason his name entered the noontime
discussions out of which the discharges grew.
Faced with the unreliability of Mays' testimony
and the discrepancies in the testimony of Mays,
Carroll, and Langford, the inference is compelling
that the true reason for Burney's discharge was not
disclosed by them in their testimony.25
There is evidence that Burney signed a union
card on May 7, but there is no evidence that this
was known to Respondent or that he engaged in
any other union activity. Yet like Pedron and Yar-
brough, during the discussion in the pump shack on
May 8 Burney had expressed his dissatisfaction, and
while, according to Mays, he was not as critical as
Pedron and Yarbrough, he was also "bitter." Thus,
like them, he had identified himself as a malcontent
with little inhibition against pursuing his com-
plaints. As Burney's discharge was decided upon at
the same time as the others, after consultation with
Respondent's president, and the reasons given for
the discharge were clearly pretextual, the conclu-
sion follows that Burney was discharged, like
Pedron and Yarbrough, because his "bitterness"
z' All of Burney's work was performed in Carroll's department before
and after the changes in his supervision Carroll testified that Burney was a
slow worker and that his work did not hold up too well Thornton was not
asked about the quality of Burney's work However, he testified that Bur-
ney was placed under Carroll's supervision because Carroll was not getting
enough cooperation from Burney and Burney was putting in more overtime
than believed necessary Neither Carroll nor Thornton recommended Bur-
ney's discharge, although Carroll testified that he was going to do so Mays
made no mention of Burney 's alleged inferior workmanship but testified in
connection with Burney 's earlier reinstatement that Burney did an-
adequate although not outstanding job
_' While there is some evidence , set forth in in 24, above, to show that
Respondent was not satisfied with Burney's work , it appears that he had
been transferred to Carroll as a result of the dissatisfaction only shortly be-
fore his discharge Absent any mention of his work performance as a
reason for his discharge by Mays or Langford, and absent any recommen-
dation from , or consultation with, Carroll , Burney's new supervisor, I con.
clude that the reasons which caused the transfer of his supervision were not
the reasons for his precipitate discharge so soon after his transfer
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
identified him as a likely supporter of the union or-
ganizing effort. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Burney.
c. Biddle
Biddle was employed by Respondent in February
1968 as a pumper. Although Biddle denied
generally that he had ever been told he had made a
mistake in loading or unloading a truck, there is un-
contradicted testimony that one night in March
1969, Biddle had failed to inform the head pumper
of three consecutive phone calls for him, resulting
in considerable delay in transmission of instructions
from Goode, the head of Respondent's pipeline
operations, to terminate pumping into the pipeline.
The delay had potentially serious consequences
which did not, however, ensue.26 On the following
morning Goode told Carroll what had happened.
Carroll said he would talk to Biddle, and Goode did
nothing further about it. Carroll questioned Biddle
about the incident and instructed him in the future
to call the head pumper to the phone immediately
if the pipeline department called. Carroll did not
talk to anyone else about the incident.
Mays testified that at lunch on May 8, after he
expressed concern over the attitude of Pedron and
Yarbrough, Thornton said that Biddle was in a
similar position and they discussed Biddle at length
in conjunction with the two pumpers. Mays testified
that Langford's position at lunch was to terminate
Biddle "Based on the fact that the attitude of the
boys was such that we had to. He felt, his past ex-
perience with Biddle, problems with pipeline super-
visors getting movements of oil in and out of the
terminal and to the customers, that he fell into the
same category and would have to be classed as one
of those ... who was dissatisfied and unhappy: just
a poor attitude toward the work and the new poli-
cies."
Mays also testified that in his telephone conver-
sation with Montgomery he mentioned, "Of course
Biddle based on our conversation Mr. Langford I
think had had some problems with him. He had
been somewhat tardy and given the pipeline su-
perintendent problems so far as being available to
turn valves at the proper times, and that creates a
problem so he would have to get out. So he said he
was not dependable and certainly would fit in the
group of attitude that Pedron and Yarbrough."
According to Langford he decided to terminate
Biddle because "the boy was kinda having too
much car trouble and his work was very unsatisfac-
tory, besides that he was not happy on the job so I
decided it was time for him to go too." Langford
testified that at previous times Biddle had failed to
"In addition to its other facilities at Pierce Junction , Respondent
operates a pipeline to plants along the Houston ship channels through
which it makes deliveries to its major customers located there
373
report for work, and called in that he had car trou-
ble and was unable to report. With respect to the
quality of Biddle's work, Langford testified that
Biddle was "a little on the lazy side," was slow in
loading and unloading trucks, and left compressors
attached to them too long, causing the compressors
to overheat. Langford was asked why he decided on
May 8 to terminate Biddle, and replied "Well, from
previous experiences we had with him and just that
and the one that Mr. Carroll testified to."27 He was
asked if he was aware of both of those circum-
stances and replied, "Yes, sir. I found out later on,"
explaining further that he was aware of them before
he terminated Biddle. Later Langford testified that
he decided to discharge Biddle on May 8, because
"Biddle was more or less a build up to the time
when he was dissatisfied with the job." Asked what
caused him to conclude this, Langford replied,
"Well the case Mr. Carroll testified to, the boys on
the pipeline was having trouble getting him to get
over to pumping. That was one of the main deci-
sions. And then, him being dissatisfied, and he
would drive the truck with the hose hooked up or
anything could happen." When asked if anything
had happened on May 8, Langford replied, "No,
sir, other than his being dissatisfied."
Carroll testified that on May 8 he was told that
Biddle was discharged because his work was very
inferior. Carroll had not recommended discharge
but testified that he would have fired Biddle himself
if he had anyone to take his place. Carroll testified
that he had spoken to Biddle about his work previ-
ously, once after Biddle failed to call the head
pumper to the telephone in March, as described
above, and other times about slowing down on
loading and unloading trucks. Carroll expressed the
opinion that the telephone incident was not the
main basis for the discharge.
As set forth above, Biddle was one of the early
supporters of the Union and had solicited other em-
ployees to sign union cards on the first night that
they were brought to the terminal. While there is
no evidence that Biddle was observed by super-
visors in this activity, the testimony of Mays and
Langford leaves no doubt that they were aware that
Biddle was among the employees who were
dissatisfied with the recent changes at the terminal.
Like the other three employees, Biddle was
discharged precipitously on May 8 without any
prior warning. The reasons advanced for his
discharge by Mays and Langford relate both to his
work performance and attitude which they tended
to merge in their testimony. Although Langford
claimed sole responsibility for the decision to
discharge Biddle, Mays testified that he made the
recommendation to discharge Biddle to Mont-
gomery along with his recommendations as to the
others.
" The reference to Carroll's testimony was to the incident in March con-
cerning Biddle 's failure to call the head pumper to the telephone when
Goode called
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Assuming that Biddle's work performance left
something to be desired, examination of their
testimony persuades me that Biddle was drawn into
consideration at this time and selected for
discharge because his attitude was considered
similar to that of Yarbrough and Pedron and not
because of deficiencies in his work. Although Mays
in his testimony generalized the March incident
into "problems" with the pipeline superintendent
moving shipments in and out of the terminal, and
Langford testified that the pipeline incident was
one of the main reasons for the discharge, there
was only a single instance described when Goode
had a problem with Biddle. That incident occurred
2 months earlier, neither Goode nor Carroll re-
ported it to Langford or a higher supervisor, and
Carroll did not believe this was a main reason for
Biddle 's discharge. Although Mays testified that
Langford mentioned tardiness as one of the factors
they considered, and Langford testified that Biddle
missed work because of car trouble, the only
timecards of Biddle introduced at the hearing,28
which related to the week immediately preceding
his discharge, showed no tardiness or absenteeism
during that period, and there was no other evidence
to show that Biddle had been late or excessively ab-
sent from work. Although Langford testified that
Biddle's slowness and other deficiences in loading
and unloading trucks were discussed as a reason for
his discharge, Mays did not mention these factors,
and significantly Carroll, who testified that Biddle's
work was inferior, had not recommended his
discharge because he had no one else to take his
place. Thus despite the various factors mentioned
other than Biddle's attitude, there are numerous
discrepancies in the testimony concerning them,
and until May 8 Respondent appeared reconciled
to his employment despite the fact that if these
reasons existed, all were present for some time be-
fore.
According to Mays, on May 8 in his lunchtime
discussion Biddle was brought in to discussion when
Thornton said that he was in a similar position to
Pedron and Yarbrough, and that Langford felt that
Biddle "fell into the same category and would have
to be classed as one of those ... who was
dissatisfied and unhappy." When Langford was
asked what had happened on May 8 when he de-
cided Biddle should be discharged, Langford
replied that "Biddle was more or less a build up to
the time when he was dissatisfied with the job," and
that nothing had happened on May 8 "other than
his being dissatisfied."
In the light of the above, and the fact that Lang-
ford and Mays could not even agree on who made
the decision to discharge Biddle, I conclude that
_" These cards were apparently introduced to refute Wagstaff's testimony
as to the signing of his card
S° Texas Natural Gasoline Corporation, 116 NLRB 405
"See William Kahr and Leon Mohill, dlb/a Hamilton News Co , 129
NLRB 770, Franke 's Inc , 142 NLRB 551 In deciding to consider the ad-
mission only as part of the evidence hearing on this issue, I note that unlike
any past derelictions on Biddle 's part had been
tolerated for some time and were raised in justifica-
tion for his discharge after the fact . I do not credit
this testimony and find that Biddle was discharged
because Respondent considered Biddle as sharing
the attitude of Pedron and Yarbrough. Ac-
cordingly , I find that Biddle was discharged for the
same reason as Pedron and Yarbrough , and that his
discharge violated Section 8 ( a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
d. Stockton
Stockton was most recently employed by
Respondent as a pumper beginning in February
1969. He had previously worked for Respondent as
a driver about 3 years before for a 1-year period.
As set forth above, Stockton's employment ended
after his visit to Langford's office on the afternoon
of May 8 with Pedron and Yarbrough, and the cir-
cumstances as to the termination of his employ-
ment are in dispute.
In support of his contention that Stockton was
discharged, counsel for the General Counsel points
to paragraph VIII of Respondent's answer which
states:
Respondent admits only that the employees
listed in paragraph 8 of the Complaint were
terminated or laid off on or about the dates set
opposite their respective names.
Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges , among other
things, that on or about May 8, 1969, Respondent
discharged Leroy Stockton.
Paragraph VIII of Respondent's answer is an ad-
mission against interest as to the fact that Stockton
was discharged.29 However, as evidence was
received as to the circumstances of Stockton's al-
leged discharge and the issue was fully litigated, I
do not view the admission as conclusive but con-
sider it as one of the elements to be weighed in
evaluating the testimony concerning Stockton's ter-
mination.30 Turning to that evidence, I have el-
sewhere found Stockton and Pedron reliable in
their testimony, while I have not been favorably im-
pressed with the testimony of Thomas and Lang-
ford. As to this very issue, Thomas and Langford
were in conflict, with Thomas asserting unequivo-
cally that Stockton said he quit, while Langford
testified only that Stockton only said "he was going
too" as Pedron started to leave. Langford's
testimony is considerably weaker than that of
Thomas. Although there is some suggestion in his
testimony, as in that of Thomas, that Stockton sug-
gested that all the pumpers leave, from which Lang-
ford might have inferred that Stockton was leaving
his job, even in this regard his testimony is am-
Texas Natural Gasoline Corp , supra, this is not a case in which Respondent
sought to amend its answer at the heanng I also note that litigation of this
issue did not represent a decision by the General Counsel to abandon
reliance on Respondent's answer but was unavoidable since it was inter-
twined with the evidence on which the General Counsel relies to estab-
lish the discriminatory motivation for the alleged discharge
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
biguous. For if Stockton merely addressed his
question about going with them to Yarbrough, a
possibility left open in Langford's testimony, it may
well have been no more than a suggestion that Yar-
brough, who had been discharged, leave Langford's
office with Stockton and Pedron, and not that all
the pumpers leave their jobs. Stockton was not on
duty at the time of the meeting in Langford's office,
and a mere indication that he was leaving with the
discharged pumpers would hardly have signified
that he was quitting his job. Thus, even under Lang-
ford's version, it is far from clear why he would
have construed Stockton's remarks as indicating
that he quit and decided to write him off, as Carroll
testified, when Respondent was already short of
pumpers.
Although Stockton's testimony as to his later visit
to Carroll, disputed by Carroll, raises some doubt
as to Stockton's certainty that he had been
discharged, I do not find it so inconsistent with his
version of the earlier meeting as to require rejec-
tion of his and Pedron's testimony in the face of the
inconsistencies between Langford and Thomas.
Stockton's visit to Carroll to tell him he would work
that evening could indicate, as Carroll testified
Stockton stated, that Stockton had changed his
mind about quitting , but it could also indicate that
Stockton was uncertain as to whether Langford's
affirmative response to his statement that Respon-
dent would have to terminate him also made in the
heat of the meeting , was meant as a termination,
and that he sought only to seek to preserve his job.
In the circumstances set forth, I conclude that
Stockton and Pedron are to be credited as to what
occurred in Langford's office and that Stockton
was discharged when Langford replied affirmatively
to Stockton's statement and thereafter told Carroll
Respondent would write him off too.
Although Stockton's discharge, unlike the others,
occurred on the spur of the moment, its cause was
the same . Stockton stated that if the others were
discharged for their attitude, Respondent would
have to terminate him also, indicating that he
shared the attitude of Yarbrough and Pedron.
Langford obliged, asserting no other cause. I con-
clude that Stockton was discharged for the same
reasons as the other employees, and that his
discharge also violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.3t
2. The discharge of Wagstaff
The circumstances surrounding Wagstaff's
discharge raise suspicion that after Thomas stopped
Wagstaff, Thomas and Mays sought to find a cause
to discharge Wagstaff. Thomas' testimony that
" As I have found that Respondent was aware of the union activity at the
terminal and the discharges were attnbutable to it, I find it unnecessary to
reach the alternative contention of the General Counsel that the discharges
375
another driver happened to mention Wagstaff's am-
putation, leading him to investigate Wagstaff's file,
is suspect. Although Thomas testified that he only
checked to see where Wagstaff had been employed
previously, and Mays testified that he acted based
on the contents of Wagstaff's personnel history file,
there is a strong suggestion that Respondent in-
vestigated Wagstaff's prior history of employment
at that time. Thus, a date stamp on the letter from
Wagstaff's doctor to Robertson indicates that the
letter was obtained by Respondent at that time.
Although Mays testified that he learned of Wag-
staff's heart disease, diabetes, and anxiety from
Wagstaff's file, Wagstaff had not disclosed these
conditions on his employment application or his
first medical history statement, and it seems likely
that Mays became aware of them from the letter
rather than a mere examination of the contents of
Wagstaff's personnel file. Although Mays denied
talking to Wagstaff before Wagstaff was examined
the second time, it is also likely that Wagstaff was
made aware that Respondent knew the reasons he
left Robertson before Wagstaff was examined the
second time, as Wagstaff made the full disclosure of
his medical history on that occasion which he con-
cealed both at the time of his initial examination for
employment with Respondent and his later ex-
amination for employment after he left Respon-
dent. Neither Mays nor Thomas impressed me as
more candid in their testimony as to Wagstaff than
in their testimony otherwise.
Nonetheless, Wagstaff's testimony, on which
reliance must be placed to infer a discriminatory
motive, also inspires little confidence. I have found
independent cause to discredit his testimony as to
the circumstances under which he signed a union
card. He conceded that he misrepresented his
reasons for leaving Robertson on his employment
application with Respondent and concealed his
medical history both at the time of his employment
by Respondent and in obtaining a new job after he
was discharged. There can be little doubt that he
did so in order to obtain employment for which he
feared he would otherwise be disqualified. In these
circumstances, I find it impossible to credit his
testimony as to his encounter with Thomas on May
25, testimony which on its face is no more plausible
than that of Thomas. Accordingly I do not credit
his testimony, and I conclude that despite the suspi-
cions that surrounded Wagstaff 's discharge, the
record fails to establish a basis for inferring that
Respondent was aware of Wagstaff's union activi-
ties or was motivated by them in requiring Wagstaff
to submit to a further physical examination and
discharging him when the result of that examination
was to disqualify him from employment as a
truckdriver.32 Accordingly, I shall recommend that
were caused by protected concerted activity.
"An unsolved mystery, which I find it unnecessary to resolve for pur-
poses of this decision, is how Wagstaff received certificates that he was
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint be dismissed as to Wagstaff s
discharge.
3. The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The complaints allege that on May 8 Foreman
"Red" Carroll interrogated an employee concern-
ing the extent of union organization and Safety Su-
pervisor Ashton Thomas interrogated an employee
about the extent of union organization and told an
employee that the employees trying to organize a
union would be fired.
With respect to Carroll, I have found that on
May 7 or 8 at the pump shack at the rail siding,
Carroll asked Stockton and Koonce how many em-
ployees were in on the Union, and Stockton replied
that the pump department was 100 percent for the
Union. Although Carroll's question went to the
union activities of other employees, he did not ask
for the names of other employees supporting the
Union, and it is unclear whether the conversation
about the Union was initiated by the employees or
by Carroll.33 Carroll's remark was unaccompanied
by any other coercive comment. In these circum-
stances, and particularly as the discussion may have
been initiated by the employees, I conclude that
Carroll's question did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
With respect to Thomas, the evidence shows that
early on the morning of May 9, Thomas asked
Daniels if he had signed "one of them things," to
which Daniels replied that he had signed a card and
explained why. Thomas told Daniels he could see
his point, and the conversation ended. Although
Thomas' question did not explicitly refer to the
union cards, there is no indication that he could
have been referring to anything else, and he did not
correct Daniels when Daniels construed his
question as relating to the union cards. I conclude
that Thomas' question was intended as construed
by Daniels. Thomas was not Daniels' supervisor,
the incident occurred where Daniels was at work,
Daniels answered truthfully, and Thomas expressed
understanding rather than hostility. Still as this in-
cident occurred immediately after the discriminato-
ry discharges of three pumpers, including Biddle
who had worked on the same shift as Daniels, I
conclude that the questioning had coercive impact
which might otherwise have been absent. Ac-
qualified to drive under Motor Carrier Safety Regulations when on the face
of the regulations , Wagstaff's amputation, without more, appeared to
disqualify him from any interstate driving without a waiver from the
Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, and to bar him absolutely from
driving a vehicle transporting dangerous articles which must he marked
under the Explosive and Other Dangerous Articles Regulations However,
although that mystery is compounded by Langford 's concession that he
hired Wagstaff with full knowledge that his amputation disqualified him
from driving Respondent 's trucks, I cannot attach substantial significance
to the change in Respondent 's view of his disability as Respondent's
management had changed , and Mays was employed as personnel manager
after Wagstaff was hired
y' According to Stockton , either Stockton or Koonce asked Carroll what
he thought of the union pamphlet he was reading when they entered the
cordingly, I find that Thomas' questioning of
Daniels violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As
there is no evidence, however, that Thomas made
any threat that the employees trying to organize a
union would be discharged, I shall recommend that
the allegation of the complaint to that effect be
dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the
Respondent's operations described in section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
As I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Frank Pedron, M. J. Burney, T. P. Yar-
brough, Leroy Stockton, and James R. Biddle on
May 8, 1969, I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to offer them immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions,34 without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them by payment to each of them of the amounts
he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date of an offer of rein-
statement, less net earnings, to which shall be
added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum,
in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As I have found that the discharge of Jewel O.
Wagstaff and the interrogation by Foreman Carroll
did not violate the Act, and there is no evidence of
a threat by Safety Supervisor Thomas, I shall
pump shack Although Stockton was not asked whether the remark
preceded or followed Carroll 's question , it seems likely that the discussion
of the Union was initiated by it
" Respondent contends that Burney and Biddle should be denied rein-
statement because of Burney's alleged gross insubordination and Biddle's
opinion expressed in his testimony that Respondent did not care about the
purity of its product As to Burney , I have rejected Mays' testimony as to
his alleged gross insubordination and find no merit in Respondent 's conten-
tion As to Biddle while his testimony as to Respondent 's concern for
product purity appears unwarranted, it was not that attitude for which he
was discharged While Biddle may be held to the same standard of per-
formance as other employees upon his reemployment, he may not be de-
nied reinstatement because he expressed a negative view of Respondent's
concern for its business at the hearing
WANDA PETROLEUM COMPANY
recommend that the complaint otherwise he
dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wanda Petroleum Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Frank Pedron,
M. J. Burney, T. P. Yarbrough, Leroy Stockton,
and James R. Biddle, and by coercively interrogat-
ing an employee, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and
(3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend
that Respondent Wanda Petroleum Company, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis-
criminating in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployees or any term or condition of their employ-
ment.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees with
respect to their union or concerted activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in any other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Frank Pedron, M. J. Burney, T. P. Yar-
brough, Leroy Stockton, and James R. Biddle im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed.
(b) Make the above-named employees whole for
any losses they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them in the manner set forth
in the section of the Decision above entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
377
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records relevant and necessary to a
determination of compliance with paragraphs (a)
and (b), above.
(d) Notify the employees named in paragraph
(a), above, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its Houston, Texas, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."35 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.31
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that allegations in
the complaint not found to have been sustained in
the Decision above be dismissed.
I' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Frank Pedron, M. J. Burney,
T. P. Yarbrough, Leroy Stockton, and James
R. Biddle immediate reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions,
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights or privileges , and WE WILL make them
whole for any losses they may have suffered as
a result of their discharges.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion , by discriminatorily discharging any of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em-
ployees about their union activities or member-
ship.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion , to bargain through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion , or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOTIFY the above -named em-
ployees if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Univer-
sal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
Dated By
WANDA PETROLEUM
'COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515
Rusk Avenue , Houston , Texas 77002 , Telephone
713-226-4296.