Donate Time for Drilling Bid, Hammer Urges Staff

Occidental Petroleum Corp. chief Dr. Armand Hammer sent a letter to all his Los Angeles employees asking each to donate at least 12 hours over the next two weeks to help pass Occidental’s pro-drilling measure, Proposition P on the city ballot. Enclosed was a form on which employees were told to specify what hours they will work.

State labor officials and legal experts contacted by The Times said that because workers might fear retaliation unless they responded, Hammer’s memo sent to employees on Oct. 17 may constitute an illegal act.

Jerry Stern, Occidental’s general counsel, said the memo went to employees with no strings attached and he denied that it was meant to intimidate anyone.

But a top backer of Occidental-backed Proposition P, county labor leader William Robertson, conceded that “I would feel pressure (if I received the memo) if I was not covered by a union agreement. Anytime you get anything from an employer, we’re always concerned about the captive audience an employer has.”

Most of the 500 employees in the firm’s Westwood headquarters are in white-collar jobs and none is represented by a union, an Occidental spokesman said.

The reply form attached to Hammer’s memo was to be returned directly to Hammer’s office by Oct. 19. Employees were asked to designate whether they preferred working week nights or weekends at special Proposition P phone banks set up at the firm’s offices. Declining to volunteer for the unpaid assignments was not among the options employees were given.

“It is very important that we all make time available for this effort,” Hammer wrote. “I would appreciate it if you could commit to a minimum of three days, or approximately 12 hours, during these final weeks of the campaign so that we all can enjoy a victory on Nov. 8.

“Please fill out the attached form and return it to my office by Oct. 19. Thank you for your willingness to assist,” Hammer wrote.

Legal Questions

Asked about the Hammer memo, state Deputy Labor Commissioner Nance Steffens said that without investigating it, she could not determine whether any law had been broken. But she added, “It sounds like there could be a violation.”

Several lawyers contacted by The Times about the memo said it may violate an obscure section of the California Labor Code titled “Employee’s Freedom of Political Affiliation.”

The section states: “No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy . . . controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct, the political activities or affiliations of employees.” Violation of the section is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum one-year jail sentence and $1,000 fine. A guilty corporation is subject to a $5,000 penalty.

“Even though there is no direct command in the letter, the fact there is no choice to decline to participate means that the employer is tending to control the employee’s political activity,” said Glenn Rothner, a Los Angeles labor attorney. “I think that section would clearly come in to play here.”

San Francisco labor lawyer Lynn Rossman said: “(Hammer’s) obviously trying to direct the political activities of his employees. Obviously, if employees don’t conform to his wishes, there will be some negative innuendo; certainly it’s within the realm of possibility.”

Attorney James E. Boddy, who represents management’s interests in labor negotiations, said he too believes that the memo comes “pretty close” to being a violation of the Labor Code.

Hammer “uses the term ‘volunteer,’ but I think an employee under the circumstances would feel (he) was directed to do that” and the employee “would have a pretty strong argument that (the memo) violates” the Labor Code, Boddy said.

The co-sponsors of rival Proposition O, which would rescind Occidental’s city-approved authority to drill for oil on a 2-acre site on Pacific Coast Highway in Pacific Palisades, charged that the Hammer memo amounted to “obvious and ruthless coercion.”

“Put yourself in their shoes--would you risk saying ‘no’ to the man who controls whether you have a job tomorrow or not?” asked a joint statement by Los Angeles Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and Marvin Braude. The councilmen late Tuesday asked the city attorney’s office, the state attorney general and the state labor commissioner to investigate.

‘No Requirement’

Hammer reportedly was in Paris and unavailable for comment, but Occidental attorney Stern, speaking on his behalf, said, “The letter asked if people wish to volunteer; there’s no requirement to do anything.” He said “many employees” did not respond to Hammer’s request for a reply by Oct. 19, but he did not know the number.

“We have a lot of people who live in Los Angeles who are concerned about passing P and stopping O,” Stern said. “We gave them an avenue to provide help if they wanted to do so.”

Asked why Hammer asked that the reply memos be sent to him instead of to the Proposition P campaign, Stern said, “This is Occidental’s desire to participate.” He said he had seen “no indication” that anyone felt threatened by Hammer’s request.