Shell Oil Company v. National Labor Relations Board

This case is before us on a petition to review and a cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board found that Shell Oil Company refused to bargain with the Oil, Chemical and *616 Atomic Workers International Union. We decline to enforce the Board’s order.

I.

For more than thirty years the Union has been the certified representative of a bargaining unit embracing the Company’s production, pipe-line, and refinery personnel in California. The employees work at several facilities within the state: two refineries at Martinez and Dominguez, a gas plant at Molino, a drilling and production operation at Ventura, and production facilities at Signal Hill, Bakersfield, Fellows-Taft, and Coalinga. There are 1,421 employees in the unit, of whom 858 or approximately 60% are members of the Union.

From January 4, 1969, until March 17, 1969, the Union engaged in a strike against the Company. According to a stipulation of the parties, some of the striking employees (though not Union officials or Union representatives) engaged in violence in the form of mass picketing and harassment of employees who had returned to work, both at the gates of the…

(concurring):

I concur in the result.

Although an employer has the “general obligation” of providing the Union relevant information in order that it may effectively represent the unit employees, N. L. R. B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 , 87 S.Ct. 565 , 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967), each case rests upon its own facts, “whether or not under the circumstances * * * the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith has been met.” N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153-154 , 76 S.Ct. 753, 756 , 100 L.Ed. 1027 (1956).

I agree with the Trial Examiner that, under the circumstances as shown by the *621 evidence in this case, including the General Counsel’s admission that the Union had not offered any assurance that confidentiality of the list would or could be maintained, the Company’s fear of harassment of non-union employees, reasonably justified its refusal to supply the list requested by the Union.

457 F.2d 615 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2997 , 67 Lab.Cas. P 12,560 SHELL OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 71-1741. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 24, 1972. David M. Heilbron (argued), Gary H. Moore, of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., William T. Wise, Houston, Tex., for petitioner. John R. Tadlock, Denver, Colo., for the charging party. Daniel M. Katz (argued) Elliott Moore, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for respondent. Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. * WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 This case is before us on a petition to review and a cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board found that Shell Oil Company refused to bargain with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. We decline to enforce the Board's order. I. 2 For more than thirty years the Union has been the certified representative of a bargaining unit embracing the Company's production, pipe-line, and refinery personnel in California. The employees work at several facilities…