American Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 393 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 393
American Oil Company and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 14-RC-
4888 and 14-RC-4889. August 10, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Herbert S. Davidoff. The Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs filed herein,
the National Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.,
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates an oil refinery at Wood River, Illinois.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the employees of this refinery in two
separate units: one comprised of operating and maintenance employ-
ees, and the other of office and clerical employees. The parties agree
that the proposed office and clerical unit, which corresponds with a unit
previously found appropriate by the Board, is appropriate." The par-
ties also agree that operating and maintenance employees constitute an
IIn Case No 14-RC-4888 the following Unions were permitted to intervene as Joint
Intervenors: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 553, AFL-CIO, Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, Local 268, AFL-CIO ; International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local 338, AFL-CIO ; Brotherhood of
Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local 917, AFL-CIO ; Bricklayers,
Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, Local 8, AFL-CIO, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Local 483, AFL-CIO ; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 525, AFL-CIO ;
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 56,
AFL-CIO ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 649, AFL-CIO ;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Carpenters District Council of Madison
County and Vicinity, Illinois, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists, District
No. 9, AFL-CIO ; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local 525.
Independent Oil Workers Union also intervened in Case No 14-RC-4888 and in Case
No 14-RC-4889 It later withdrew from participation in Case No. 14-RC-4889
Independent Oil Workers Union, Local No 15, intervened in Case No. 14-RC-4889
Independent Oil Workers Union, Local 115, intervened in both cases but later with-
drew from the proceeding
2 Standard Oil Company ( Indiana ), 98 NLRB 282
154 NLRB No. 27.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit. They disagree, however-and this is the sole issue-
as to whether "process supervisors"' who, prior to their reclassifica-
tion on September 29, 1964, had the job titles of stillman, pumper,
engineer, and treater, are supervisors within the meaning of Section
2 (11) of the Act.3 The Employer contends that they are, and the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenors that they are not.
Bargaining History
For several years before 1951, the Employer bargained with Local
115, Central States Petroleum Union, for operating and maintenance
employees, excluding supervisors. In 1959, Local 115 became an affili-
ate of Independent Oil Workers Union but continued to represent the
same employees. The most recent collective-bargaining contract cover-
ing operating and maintenance employees was effective from December
1960 to December 1963, when it was terminated by Local 115.
During the entire bargaining history, stillmen, pumpers, engineers,
and treaters, the individuals who the Employer contends have now
become supervisors under the job title of "process supervisors," were
considered part of the bargaining unit as non supervisory employees
and were covered by the terms of the various collective-bargaining con-
tracts negotiated by Local 115 and the Employer.
The Changeover to Process Supervisor
The Petitioner filed its petition seeking to represent operating and
maintenance employees on July 1, 1964. On September 15, 1964, the
Regional Director notified the parties that a hearing on the petition
would be held on October 6, 1964. On September 29, 1964, 2 weeks
after the notification of hearing, the Employer distributed a bulletin
to the individuals involved and to employees generally "for the pur-
pose of clarifying and establishing the position and supervisory status"
of stillmen, pumpers, engineers, and treaters on certain of its units.
The bulletin, as set out in Appendix A, announced that the incum-
bents in the foregoing positions were reclassified as "process super-
visors" and described their "authority, duties and responsibilities" as
including the authority responsibly to direct the work of employees on
their shifts, effectively to recommend changes in their status, adjust
their grievances, and discipline them. According to the Employer's
brief, "There is no need to go beyond the bulletin of September 29, 1964,
a Section 2(11) of the Act reads: "The term `supervisor' means any individual having
authority , in the interest of the employer , to hire, transfer , suspend , lay off, recall,
promote, discharge , assign , reward , or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct
them, or to adjust their grievances , or effectively to recommend such action , if in con-
nection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature , but requires the use of independent judgment."
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 395
and the related matters in determining the supervisory status of the
Process Supervisors.": the bulletin was drawn "with the statutory
definition [of supervisor] in mind."
Discussion
Whether an individual is a supervisor within the Act's definition
cannot be determined simply by referring to the job title or by exam-
ining a theoretical expression of his responsibilities and duties in a
bulletin.4 As the court stated in the Southern Bleacherg case : 5
... the employer cannot make a supervisor out of a rank and file
employee simply by giving him the title and theoretical power to
perform one or more of the enumerated supervisory functions.
The important thing is the possession and exercise of actual super-
visory duties and authority and not the formal title. It is a ques-
tion of fact in every case as to whether the individual is merely a
superior workman or leadman who exercises the control of a skilled
worker over less capable employees, or is a supervisor who shares
the power of management.
And the fact that the conferring of alleged supervisory authority on
individuals who had theretofore been considered nonsupervisory fol-
lowed shortly after the filing of a representation petition and repre-
sented an apparent attempt to remove them from the bargaining unit
is reason for scrutinizing carefully all the surrounding factors in deter-
mining whether the authority conferred was real or only theoretical.6
The plant organization: The refinery is organized into seven divi-
sions, of which three are staff and four are operating and maintenance.
The latter are: (1) light oils division, (2) chemicals and heavy prod-
ucts division, (3) utilities division, and (4) mechanical division.
Process supervisors work only in the light oils, chemicals and heavy
products, and utilities divisions. Accordingly, we are concerned only
with these three divisions. Each of the three divisions has a number
of departments and subdepartments. The organization of the three
divisions is as follows :
The light oils division: This division has three departments-crude-
cracking, finishing, and loading.
The crude-cracking department includes the No. 5 pipe still, the
fluid catalytic cracking unit (referred to as No. 2 FCU of the cat
cracker), and the ultraformer.
4 AT L R B. v. Southern Bleachery & Print Works , Inc., 257 F 2d 235, 239 (C A 4),
cert . denied 359 U S 911 ; Cinch Manufacturing Corporation , 98 NLRB 781, 783
5 N L R B. v. Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Inc, supra.
6 American Finishing Company, 86 NLRB 412 , 417; N . L.R B. v. Lindsay Newspapers,
Inc., 315 F. 2d 709 (C A. 5)
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The finishing department includes the central pumphouse,7 the
butane polymerization plant No. 2 (referred to as the poly plant),
the sulfuric acide alkylation plant (referred to as the alky plant), and
No. 2 vapor recovery unit.
The loading department covers barge and tank loading.
A superintendent is in charge of the division. Each of the three
departments in the division is headed by a general foreman and three
or four shift foremen. Each of the several units in the departments is
headed by an assistant general foreman." There is also an additional
foreman in charge of the truck rack at the pumphouse.
There are 28 process supervisors in the light oils division evenly
divided between the crude-cracking and the finishing departments. A
process supervisor on each shift generally works in a unit with two or
three other employees.
The chemicals and heavy products division: This division is divided
into two departments-chemicals manufacturing or additive depart-
ment and asphalts or heavy products department.
The chemicals manufacturing department units include the deter-
gent additives plant, sulfurizing plant, sulfurized dipentene plant, syn-
thetic lubricant or syntholube plant, and the BOT plant.9
The heavy products department units include the asphalt plant,
asphalt packaging plant, compound house, and barrel house.
A superintendent is in charge of the division. Each department is
headed by a general foreman and two assistant foremen. In addition,
the asphalt packaging unit and barrel house unit each has a foreman
in charge. There are also four shift foremen who perform supervisory
duties in the two departments comprising the division.
There are 13 process supervisors in the division, of whom 9 are in
the chemicals department and 4 in the heavy products department.
The process supervisor generally works with two or three other
employees on each shift.
The utilities division: This division includes a boilerroom, turbine
room, water treating plant, and air compressors.
The division is supervised by a superintendent, two general foremen,
and four shift foremen.
There are four process supervisors. They work in the boilerroom
with from three to four operators and one tube blower.
The duties of the process supervisors and their assistants: The spe-
cific duties of the different process supervisors on each of the depart-
mental subdivisions are set out in the record more in conclusory than
in descriptive language. The record shows, however, and the parties
7 The pumphouse includes the continuous heater oil sweetening plant and the con-
tinuous LCGO caustic washing plant.
8 The alkylation plant and No. 2 vapor recovery unit are headed by the same assistant
general foreman.
0 BOT is an abbreviation for bisdioctyldithiadiazole
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 397
do not disagree, that the process supervisors' relationship and author-
ity with respect to the operators on the various units is substantially
alike. We describe, as representative, the duties of employees at the
cat cracker which is in the light oils division. Employees in this unit
maintain air flow from the blower, maintain valve control on gases
leaving the generator, control levels of catalysts, maintain tempera-
tures and pressures in the vessels, and watch the rate of flow of "gas
oil" entering the reactor. This work involves the observation of the
blower and other equipment, as well as reading and adjustment of indi-
cators and instruments on a control board in a control room. The
work, including that of the process supervisor, normally requires mov-
ing about the unit, observation and reading of gauges and equipment.
turning valves and switches, recordkeeping, and cleaning the unit. The
employees' equipment includes such tools as wrenches, flashlights, and
screwdrivers. Their clothing includes goggles, respirators, hard hats,
protective clothing, and gloves.
The process supervisor works directly in the unit and also spends
much of his time in the control room or in the immediate area. He
may tell an operator to make changes to insure reactor temperatures,
but the operator or boardman on the unit may himself make any neces-
sary adjustments. Routine changes are normally made by operators
without consultation with the process supervisor. Routine testing and
sampling is performed by the unit operators or by laboratory employ-
ees, and maintenance work is performed by employees in the separate
mechanical division. The process supervisor may order repairs, over-
see safety aspects of the work, and direct operators to check that the
equipment is repaired satisfactorily.
Progression and wage rates: The stillman, treater, pumper, and
engineer classifications required several years of training to attain.
The progression was from operator (first year), to operator (second
year), to operator, and then to treater, pumper, stillman, or engineer.
This last job was the highest paid nonsupervisory job covered by the
1960 collective-bargaining contract. The wage was $3.625-equivalent
to that of the carpenter patternmaker. There was a 351/2-cent differ-
ence between it and the next lower classified job. Thereafter, in April
1962, the Employer granted a 3-percent wage increase to everyone-
including the disputed group. Thus, the process supervisor's hourly
wage after April 1962 and before the September 1964 changeover was
approximately $3.73.
In September 1964, when the stillmen were designated process super-
visors, the Employer changed the process supervisors' method of pay-
ment from an hourly wage to a monthly salary. The salary was set at
$750 a month and the merit system, applicable to supervisors, was made
applicable to them. It permitted earnings up to about $10,000.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Process Supervisor Galliher testified that he earned $8,420 in 1963
on an hourly basis and that under his current monthly salary he can
earn $9,000. He said that the new salary, taking into account past over-
time and holiday benefits as well as a wage increase granted to hourly
paid employees after the April 1962 increase, would amount to but
$243 more than his 1963 annual earnings. Light Oils Division Super-
intendent Gifford testified that shift foremen's earnings were at least
5 percent more than those of process supervisors and could range up to
25 to 30 percent more than those of the process supervisors.
Supervision: As previously stated, process supervisors work iii three
divisions : light oils, chemicals and heavy products, and utilities. Each
of these divisions is headed by a superintendent.10 Included in the
undisputed supervisory hierarchy beneath the division superintendent
are general foremen, assistant general foremen, foremen, and shift
foremen. There are 28 process supervisors in the light oils division,
13 in the chemicals and heavy products division, and 4 in the utilities
division. Each of the process supervisors generally works with one to
three operators; in a few instances he may work with four or five.
Before September 29, 1964, the date of reclassification, there were
19 supervisors in the light oils division to 130 to 140 hourly paid
employees, or 1 supervisor to approximately 7 employees. If we were
to find that the former stillmen, pumpers, engineers, and treaters are
now supervisors, there would be 47 supervisors to 105 to 115 employees
in that division, or 1 supervisor to slightly more than 2 employees. The
ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisors in the chemicals and heavy
products division and in the utilities division would not be significantly
different.
Alleged supervisory authority of process supervisors : Contrary to
the Employer's contention, the record shows that the individuals in
dispute do not have power effectively to recommend changes in the
status of other employees and they have not adjusted grievances or dis-
ciplined employees.
The record shows that the Employer has not hired employees for
several years and hiring procedures are not now defined. Thus, we do
not consider persuasive testimony by Light Oils Superintendent Gif-
ford that the process supervisor "would be consulted if any hiring were
done."
There is no showing that process supervisors can transfer employees.
There have been no interplant transfers. The record further shows
that intraplant transfers ordinarily are not feasible because of the
different kinds of experience required on the different units. It does
not appear that, even in an emergency situation, the process supervisor
alone would effect a transfer; rather he would ask a superior for addi-
tional help.
10 Over the superintendents are the refinery manager and the assistant refinery manager
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 399
There is no evidence of any occasion since September 29, 1964, for a
process supervisor to suspend an employee, although Superintendent
Gifford testified that the process supervisors were told by the plant
manager that they had the power to discharge, discipline, and suspend
employees. The only instance mentioned by Superintendent Gifford
ocurred before September 29 and related to the superintendent's send-
ing a shift foreman home after a stillman observed that the shift fore-
man was inebriated.
The record does not support any alleged authority of the process
supervisors to lay off or recall employees. There have been no recent
instances of layoffs and recalls. The procedures governing them had
been set out in collective-bargaining contracts and employer represent-
atives indicated those procedures would still be followed. Testimony
of General Foreman Wishlinski indicated that these procedures, based
on seniority, do not allow for effective recommendations by any
supervisor.
Promotion, too, is based largely on contract seniority provisions,
and there is no evidence that process supervisors could effectively rec-
omnnend a promotion that would depart from the contract provisions.
The only testimony respecting a specific instance of a promotion was
that of General Foreman Leonatti in the utilities division. He related
an instance that occurred before the September 29 changeover, when
the boilerroom engineers expressed surprise that a certain operator
was not promoted after a periodic test under the progression system.
Thereafter, he said, the Employer retested the operator. That the
opinion of the engineers was one of the factors taken into account in
the Employer's determination to retest an operator under the contract
progression system cannot be said to amount to an effective recommen-
dation for promotion where the Employer proceeded independently
to retest the operator's ability.
Similarly, there has been no instance of a discharge and no evidence
that the process supervisor has authority to effect a discharge. General
Foreman Arkis of the chemicals department testified that, in the event
of a discharge, the process supervisor would be "in on the decision" as
would the shift foreman, but "discharge is a very serious thing and
this is normally not the one person that will do this. It is a consensus
of opinion involving everybody up, and sometimes including the
refinery manager."
There is no evidence that any process supervisor, before or after the
September 29 changeover, has played a responsible part in the reward
of any employee. The Employer appears to rely on the bulletin's grant
of authority to the process supervisor to evaluate the work and conduct
of employees, and to make proficiency reports and recommendations
for increases and advances. It is apparent from Superintendent Gif-
ford's testimony that before September 29 process supervisors under
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their former job titles did not regularly evaluate the work of their
assistants.
Two process supervisors testified that they were told only a week
before the hearing to fill out evaluation reports on employees with
whom they had worked at some time. Neither had filled out such
reports before that time. Foreman Wishlinski testified that the evalu-
ations will be used principally for training and counseling purposes.
In view of the contract progression system and contract wage sched-
ules, we do not believe that the record supports a conclusion that the
process supervisors can reward employees through the evaluations or
in any other manner.
There is no evidence that any process supervisor has adjusted griev-
ances. Although management witnesses testified that process super-
visors have such authority , in the only instance of the presentation of
a grievance to a process supervisor since September 29, 1964, the out-
come depended on a decision by the assistant general foreman who was
superior to the process supervisor. The process supervisor involved
testified that he did not think that he had authority to adjust the
employee's grievance as he thought it should be adjusted in view of the
direction on the matter received from his superior.
In the absence of any of the other usual indicia of supervisory status,
there remains for consideration only the question whether these process
supervisors responsibly direct the work of other employees. The
Employer contends that they do, whereas the Petitioner argues that
the duties of this group are only routine and do not require the use of
independent judgment.
There is a substantial hierarchy of supervision at the plant in the
daytime. And at night and on weekends, there is always a shift fore-
man in charge. Further, the foreman superior to the shift foreman is
always on call weekends and holidays, and any foreman may be called
in an emergency. The process supervisor is the highest paid worker
present in a unit. But this is equally true of other units where the
stillmen have not been designated process supervisors.
The decisions that the process supervisor is called upon to make
respecting maintaining proper temperatures, taking additional sam-
ples, determining whether instruments are functioning properly, and
varying a blend, appear to be those normally a part of a highly skilled
employee's job involving complex equipment. The method of operat-
ing the various units is prescribed in an operating manual as well as
in daily orders passed on from the assistant general foreman. In an
emergency situation the operator or process supervisor would usually
call on the shift foreman and any other admitted supervisor who could
be reached.
The shutdown, turnaround, and startup for the purpose of repairing
a unit occurs infrequently, and every admitted supervisor is present
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 401
at such times. Similarly, in a complete shutdown, all admitted super-
visory personnel are present. A written manual sets out the startup
and shutdown procedure. The decision to shut down for cleaning or
lack of feed stock is generally made by one of the foremen. In a very
hazardous situation, the process supervisor or even an operator may
shut down the equipment. But short of this emergency, the shift
foreman or assistant general foreman would decide whether to shut
down.
The process supervisor cannot himself call for assistance from an-
other unit. Indeed, in most situations such a call would be of no avail
because, as Superintendent Gifford testified, "the process supervisor
and his crew are trained on a particular unit. It is a highly complex
thing. They know this unit and they cannot willy-nilly move to
another unit. . . ." It is the shift foreman who would obtain help or
replacements when needed.
Similarly, the shift foreman releases employees on duty. Although
Superintendent Gifford testified that the process supervisor can release
an operator from the unit if he is ill, to go to a funeral, or if the unit has
too many employees, he gave no specific example of such occurrence.
The writing up of work orders for mechanical repairs by process
supervisors appears to be but an administrative and routine task. It
was newly instituted after September 29. Although it may be assumed
that some judgment is required to determine that repair work is needed,
an operator may make this determination. The procedure for author-
izing hazardous work still requires several supervisors' authorization.
And shift foremen still assign priorities to repair work requested by
the process supervisor. The authorizing of repairs does not substanti-
ate supervisory responsibility for the work of other employees on the
unit.
Scheduling and assignment of work on the unit is done a week in
advance by the general foreman. Employees then work steadily on
that part of the unit where they have experience, although there may be
some changearound to gain different experience. Any authority to
assign exercised by the process supervisor to carry the operation f or-
ward appears to be no more than is customary for the more experienced
and skilled member of such a highly specialized mechanical crew.
We find that the control exercised by the process supervisor over his
assistants "is not the type of control contemplated in the statutory
definition of a supervisor; it is not the authority responsibly to direct
other employees which flows from management and tends to identify
or associate a worker with management." 11
"Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc, 115 NLRB 787, 791, enfd. 257 P. 2d
235 (C.A. 4), cert. denied 359 U.S. 911 ; United States Gypsum Company, 116 NLRB
656, 660; United States Gypsum Company, 121 NLRB 370, 373.
206-446-66-vol. 154-27
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusion
The alleged alteration in the status of process supervisors after Sep-
tember 29, 1964, did not result from a change in manufacturing opera-
tions or a realignment or reorganization of processing personnel. The
process supervisors did the same work with the same number of assist-
ants after that date as they had done before, when classified as stillmen,
pumpers, engineers, and treaters. Moreover, not all stillmen, pumpers,
and engineers were reclassified as process supervisors. Some of the
employees in these classifications, although performing the same work
as the reclassified individuals, retained their old job titles and are con-
cededly still nonsupervisory employees.12 As set out above, the alleged
changes in the responsibilities and authority of the process supervisors
created by the bulletin of September 29, 1964, are more illusory than
real. To accept the contention of the Employer that the process super-
visors are supervisors would result in a marked disproportion in the
ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisors.13 Finally, for the many years
until 1964 that the Employer bargained collectively for its operating
and maintenance employees, it recognized that the process supervisors
under their former job titles of Stillman, pumper, engineer, and treater
were not supervisors. For all the foregoing reasons, we find that, de-
spite their title and the bulletin of September 29, 1964, the process
supervisors do not possess and exercise actual supervisory duties and
authority and therefore are not supervisors who share the power of
management. At most the process supervisors are leadmen or the kind
of minor supervisors that Congress did not intend to exclude from the
coverage of the Act.14 Accordingly, we shall include the process super-
visors in the operating and maintenance unit.
We find that the following units, excluding from each professional
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
1. All operating and maintenance employees, including process
supervisors.
13 In several cases the failure to reclassify may be attributable to the fact that the
stillman or engineer worked alone without assistance But in other cases where no
change was made, the stillman or engineer had one or more operator assistants. This
was true, for example, in the compound house, the sulfurized dipentene plant, and the
BOT plant.
13Mt. Clemens Metal Products Company, 126 NLRB 1297 , 1298, enfd . as modified 287
F. 2d 790 (C.A. 6) ; United States Gypsum Company , 119 NLRB 1415 , 1417-1418; Pervel
Corporation, 119 NLRB 497, 499.
14N.L.R.B. v. Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Inc., 257 F 2d 235, 239 (C.A. 4)
See also Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc ., 115 NLRB 787, 791-792 ; Northern
Virginia Steel Corp . v. N.L.R.B., 300 F 2d 168 , 171-172 (C.A 4) ; NL.R.B. v. North
Carolina Granite Corporation, 201 F. 2d 469 (C.A. 4) ; N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment,
Inc., 307 F. 2d 275, 279 ( C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v . Quincy Steel Casting Co ., Inc., 200 F. 2d
293, 296 (C.A. 1) ; Precision Fabricators v. N.L.R.B., 204 F. 2d 567, 569 (CA. 2) ;
N.L.R.B. v. R. H. Osbrink, et al., etc, d/b/a R. H. Osbrsnk Manufacturing Company, 218
F. 2d 341, 344 ( C.A. 9), cert. denied 349 U.S. 928.
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 403
2. All office and clerical employees , excluding confidential employees.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY
Wood River Refinery P. O. Box 182 Wood River , Illinois 62095
MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT
J. A. NORGAARD
BULLETIN Manager
R. A. JACK
Assistant Manager
In re : Stillmen, Treaters, Pumpers, Engineers on No. 5 P.S., No. 2
FCU, Ultraformer, Central Pump House, Poly Plant, Ally
Plant, Boiler Room, Detergent Additives Plant, Sulfurizing
Plant, and Asphalt Plant.
The subject employees have had and have exercised many of the duties
and responsibilities hereinafter set forth. The full extent of their
authority has not been established or clearly stated by the Refinery
Manager. In order to ensure that all employees completely understand
the extent of the authority, duties, and responsibilities of the subject
employees, the following written delegation is being promulgated.
Effective immediately, the incumbents in the above-named positions
are classified as Process Supervisors. They have and shall have and
exercise the following authority, duties, and responsibilities:
1. Responsibility to direct the work of the employees on his shift and
by the use of independent judgment and discretion to determine
which work shall be clone and how, when, and by which employees
it shall be done in starting up, shutting down, operating, and con-
trolling of the unit or facility and in so doing to make work assign-
ments and to issue orders and instructions to such employees in
behalf of the Company with which they are required to comply.
2. To supervise, observe, inspect, and evaluate the work and conduct
of the employees on his shift and to make proficiency and other
reports concerning such employees and to make recommendations
for increases, advancements, etc., based thereon which shall be given
particular consideration and weight.
3. To.recommend effectively which employees shall work on his shift.
4. To have immediate and direct charge of the unit or facility to which
assigned in respect to access thereto by the employees on his shift
and all other employess.
5. To grant permission to employees on his shift to leave or absent
themselves from the unit or facility and from their usual or regu-
larly assigned areas or places of work.
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. To entertain and adjust grievances and complaints of the employees
on his shift which arise during such shift and which concern work-
ing conditions and relations with other employees and with the
Company and otherwise to provide for and to maintain the orderly,
harmonious, and efficient working together of such employees in the
accomplishment of the work to be done.
7. To administer appropriate discipline in accordance with prescribed
procedures.
This bulletin in published for the purpose of clarifying and establish-
ing the position and supervisory status of the subject employees who
in addition to the foregoing shall continue to have and exercise the
authority, duties, and responsibilities heretofore established.
J. A. Norgaard
Wood River, Illinois
September 29, 1964
Morganton Dyeing and Finishing Corporation and Textile Work-
ers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case No. 11-CA-2436.
August 11, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 3, 1965, 'Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his
Decision and Report on Objections to Election in a consolidated
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case No. 11-CA-
2436 and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended the dismissal of these allega-
tions. With respect to the objections to election in Case No. 11-RC-
1947, the Trial Examiner found that they have merit, and recom-
mended that the election held on May 15, 1964, be set aside and a
new election be directed. The Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and Report on Objections to Election
insofar as the Respondent was found to have violated the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and to have engaged in objec-
tionable conduct, and filed a brief in support thereof. No exceptions
were filed by the General Counsel or the Charging Party.
On July 14, 1965, and after the case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board, the Petitioner in Case No. 11-RC-1947
requested permission to withdraw its petition in that case. On July 19,
154 NLRB No. 31.