American Republics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of AMERICAN REPUBLICS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-79.Decided August 17,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.'`
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.'
The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the
Employer.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds that no ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Petitioner contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees in the Employer's production department at Brooks Field,
Beech Creek Fields, Joe's Lake, and Hull-Daisetta Field, all in the
State of Texas, including warehouse clerks and gas plant employees, but
excluding drilling employees, office and plant protection employees,
and professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute an appropriate unit. The Employer contends that the unit
• Houston, Reynolds , and Gray.
i The Employer refuses to admit that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. In its oil producing operations , the Employer is engaged in production of pe-
troleum and related products in the States of Texas, Louisiana , New Mexico , and Arkansas,
and in the sale of these products to vatious major oil pipe -line and gas companies in
various states See Matter of American Republics Corporation ( Norsioorthy Terminal
Division), 74 N L It B 962.
78 N L. R. B., No. 138.
1025
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate for its employees should be coextensive with Employer's
entire operation in its fields in southeast Texas and southwest Louis-
iana, including drilling employees and gas plant employees, and all
other production and maintenance employees in this area, but exclud-
ing warehouse clerks, all clerical employees, administrative, technical,
and professional employees, rotary drillers, and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The Employer is an independent oil company. It drills and main-
tains oil and gas wells at five fields or leases in southeast Texas and
southwest Louisiana. The Petitioner would limit its proposed unit
to employees in the Employer's fields in southeast Texas.
The Employer's southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana opera-
tions are all within a comparable distance from Houston, Texas, and
are centrally administered and governed by one over-all management
and personnel policy formulated by the vice president and other offi-
cers of the Employer at its main office at Houston. Similar work and
work classifications obtain at the various fields under their jurisdiction.
The Employer maintains uniform wage rates in like classifications
throughout its Houston area in southeast Texas and southwest Louisi-
ana and all employees in this area are paid by check from the Houston
-office. The Employer transfers employees among its field locations
in this area according to its needs and the desires of its employees.
Drilling and rework jobs take place at varying times at all the fields.
Drilling employees are transferred from field to field as the need
demands. This transfer is in part the basis of the Petitioner's pro-
posed exclusion of drilling employees.2 During periods when there
is no drilling to be done, however, the drilling crews are usually re-
tained in other capacities for production and maintenance work, so
that they have substantial interest in common with other production
and maintenance employees and should, therefore, be included in the
:some unit with them.
.The Petitioner contends that its proposed unit limited to the Em-
-ployer's southeast Texas operation is appropriate because the Peti-
rtioner is a local union admitting to membership employees working
in Texas, but not outside the State. Inasmuch as the record discloses
the integration of operations in this administrative section of the Em-
ployer's operations, we believe that the Petitioner's limitations as to
membership is not controlling on the unit issue.
In view of the functional interrelationship of employees in the
southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana area, the centralized con-
The Petitioner further contends that drilling employees are not "production employees"
since their drilling work precedes the operation of a well as a going concern We find no
,merit in this ,contention.
AMERICAN REPUBLICS CORPORATION 1027
trol from Houston, the transfer of employees and the similarity of
skills and working conditions among the various oil fields of the Em-
ployer, the interest of the drilling employees in the work of other
production and maintenance employees,,we are of the opinion that the
unit limited to southeast Texas employees as proposed by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate and that the unit for these employees should
properly include employees of the Employer in its southwest Louisiana
area and should include the drilling crew employees .3 We therefore
find no appropriate unit within the scope of the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
3Matter of Denver Producing & Refining Company, 75 N L. R B 873, and cases cited
therein.