Amoco Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amoco Oil Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local-7-
1, Inc. Case 13-CA-13717
December 9, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
employees as their spokesmen absent-some statutory
or other legal impediment. None exists here, and as
Respondent has not demonstrated any legally ac-
ceptable justification 'for its refusal to recognize ,the
individual selected, its refusal is in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On May 15, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Paul
Bisgyer issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
We particularly note that the Respondent voluntar-
ily recognizes the Union, which is the certified
representative of its production and maintenance
employees, as the representative of its plant guards.
The Union cannot be certified by this Agency as the
representative of plant guards because it admits other
employees to membership; but a plant guard unit is
appropriate and the Respondent does not question
the Union's. status as the representative of either unit.
This relationship, in one form, or another, has
endured for almost 40 years and there is no
indication that the Respondent is dissatisfied with it;
it has not attempted to alter it and has voiced no
objection to it here.
Admitting the Union's status as the collective-
bargaining representative of the two units of its
employees, and without attacking the bargaining
relationship, the Respondent claims the right to
refuse to deal with an individual whom its pro-
duction and maintenance employees have elected to
represent them on behalf of the Union. Congress has
given to employees the exclusive right to select their
own representatives, and once the unit and a
bargaining representative for it is validly recognized
by the Respondent, Respondent cannot refuse
thereafter to deal with the individuals selected by the
' The complaint is based on a charge filed by Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 7-I, Inc, on November 1,
1974, a copy of which was duly served on the Respondent by registered mail
on November 5, 1974
2 Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer
"to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7." Insofar as pertinent, Sec 7 provides that
"[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
Sec 8(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse
to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees" designated
221 NLRB No. 184
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Amoco Oil
Company, Whiting, Indiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BISGYER, Administrative Law Judge: This proceed-
ing, with all the parties represented, was,heard on February
13, 1975, in Chicago, Illinois, on the complaint of the
General Counsel issued on December 27, 1974,1 and the
answer of Amoco Oil Company, herein called the Respon-
dent or Company. The sole issue to be resolved is whether
the Respondent breached its statutory bargaining obliga-
tion in refusing to recognize and, deal with William ,O.
Wyse, a plant guard and a duly elected member of the
bargaining committee of Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 7-1, Inc.,
herein called the Union, as the representative of certain of
the Respondent's production and maintenance employees
and whether the Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.2 At the close of the hearing, the parties argued
their positions orally and thereafter submitted briefs.
Upon the entire record, and with careful consideration
being given to the arguments advanced by the parties, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Maryland corporation with its
principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, and refineries and
by a majority of them in an appropriate unit Also involved herein is Sec
9(b) which provides, in relevant part, that
the Board shall not (3) decide that any unit is appropriate
for such purposes if it includes, together with other employees, any
individual employed as a guard to enforce against employees and other
persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the
safety of persons on the employer's premises, but no labor organization
shall be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit
of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated
directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to member-
ship, employees other than guards
AMOCO OIL COMPANY
other facilities located throughout the United States, is
engaged in the business of refining, transporting, and
marketing petroleum and petroleum products. Its refinery
in Whiting, Indiana, is the only facility involved in this
case. The Respondent's annual gross volume of business
exceeds $500,000. In addition, in the regular course and
conduct of its operations, the Respondent annually sells
and ships goods and products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from its Whiting plant to locations in States other
than Indiana.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is conceded , and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The facts are not in dispute3 and may be summarized as
follows:
The Respondent owns and operates a refinery' in
Whiting, Indiana, where it employs 1,605 production and
maintenance employees and 19 plant guards. For almost
40 years, the Union, under various names, has been
representing the employees in those classifications pur-
suant to successive collective-bargaining contracts. Until
1956, both employee groups were covered in a single
contract in an overall bargaining unit. Since that year to
the present time the production and maintenance employ-
ees and the guards have been recognized as separate
appropriate bargaining units, each of which being gov-
erned by its own collective-bargaining agreement .4 Both
contracts which were current at the time of the events
herein have the same effective date of March 7, 1973, and
the same terminal date of January 6, 1975, with provision
for amendment and renewal. In 1963, the Union was
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
production and maintenance employees at the Whiting
refinery, while the Respondent continued to accord the
Union voluntary recognition as the representative of the
plant guards.5 Undeniably, the relationship between the
Respondent and the Union has been at all times friendly
and harmonious until the Respondent declined to recog-
nize and deal with William O. Wyse, an admitted plant
3 The Respondent stipulated to some of the recited facts for the purpose
of this case only without , however, conceding their relevancy
4 The production and maintenance unit, as described in the complaint
and the contract current at the time of the hearing, consists of.
All employees of the Respondent under the supervisory jurisdiction
of the Manufacturing and Research and Development Departments at
its Whiting, Indiana , plant, excluding confidential employees, all
employees represented by Research and Engineering Professional
Employees Association and', by Office and Professional Employees
International Union, Local 423, and all guards, nurses, professional
employees, Engineering Assistants, as specified in NLRB certification
13-RC-7108 , and supervisors as defined by the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
The concededly appropriate plant guard unit is described in the
1105
guard within the definition of Section 9(b)(3), under
circumstances related below.
Since 1937, the Union, purely as an internal matter and
more particularly for the purpose of selecting employee
representatives to negotiate and administer its contracts
with the Respondent, has grouped all the Company's
employees it represents into divisions composed of certain
categories of employees. As near as possible, the Union
tries to keep the same number of employees in each
division. From time to time, the number of divisions has
varied but for the past 7 or 8 years the Union has
maintained seven divisions. Admittedly, the Respondent
has never participated in the creation or functioning of
these divisions, which do not follow the Respondent's plant
organizational structure. Nor do the parties' contract
provide for the selection of divisional representatives to
represent any group of employees.
Under the Union's procedures, the employees in each
division elect their own bargaining representative, known
as a divisional representative, who serves in that capacity
for a term of 3 years. Elections are customarily held in
three divisions in one year and in four divisions the next
election year. When an election is scheduled, notices are
posted throughout the refinery identifying the particular
division in which a bargaining representative would be
selected and the employee categories eligible to vote.
The seven divisional representatives comprise the
Union's board of directors from which the Union's
members elect its officers. Each divisional representative,
as a member of the board of directors, participates in the
negotiation of both contracts covering the production and
maintenance employees and the plant guards. The board of
directors represents and speaks for all employees in matters
relating to the bargaining contracts and working condi-
tions affecting all the employees. Divisional representatives
may also present to the board of directors matters of
particular concern to their own constituents. In addition,
they process the grievances of the employees in their own
division, as well as the grievances of employees in other
divisions if such employees so request.
One of the divisions with which this proceeding is
principally concerned is division 6. Its constituents consist
of approximately 228 production and maintenance em-
ployees6 and all 19 plant guards. At a regularly scheduled
election held on October 24, 1974, for division 6 and two
other divisions not involved herein , Plant Guard William
0. Wyse was elected over a production and maintenance
employee by a vote of 102 to 41. By letter dated October
complaint and the current contract as composed of
All non-supervisory Plant Security Division employees of the
Respondent under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Manufacturing
Department of the Respondent's Whiting, Indiana, Plant.
5 Although Sec . 9(b)(3) precludes the Board from certifying a labor
organization as the bargaining representative of a unit of guards if that
organization admits to membership nonguards , voluntary recognition is,
nevertheless, permissible The William J Burns International Detective
Agency, Inc., 134 NLRB 451, 453 (1961).
6 More specifically,, the production and maintenance group includes the
utilities or powerhouse department employees , material handling division
employees (truck and car garage employees, track repair gang, heavy
equipment operators , and all warehousemen); instrument electricians; and
marketing department employees (truck and tank car fillers, also known as
boulevard filling rack employees).
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
29, 1974, Union President Pavlo notified the Respondent's
plant manager, J. A. Norgaard, that "[i ]n accordance with
our Local's Constitution & Bylaws" Wyse for division 6
and two other employees for divisions 2 and 4 were elected
as "Representatives" for 3-year terms beginning November
1, 1974. The letter closed with the statement that "[w]e
trust that the duly-elected new Representative for Division
6, William O. Wyse, will be given the same consideration
and cooperation by your office, as is [sic] received by the
other Representatives for this Local... .
In response, Norgaard on October 31 sent the Umon the
following letter:
We are in receipt of the results of your October 24,
1974 Union election of representatives. It is our
understanding that Mr. W. O. Wyse is a full-time Plant
Guard and is not an employee in the Production and
Maintenance bargaining unit.
The National Labor Relations Act, Section 9(b)(3),
requires a complete separation between Plant Guards
and Production and Maintenance employees. There-
fore, until this matter is resolved, the Company will not
recognize Mr. W. O. Wyse, Plant Guard, as a bona fide
representative of Production and Maintenance employ-
ees at the Whiting Refinery.
If you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please
do not hesitate to call.
The next day, the Union filed the unfair labor practice
charge in this case, alleging that the Respondent unlawful-
ly refused to bargain collectively with an authorized
representative of the Union. It appears that until Wyse's
election the Respondent had never challenged or objected
to any divisional representative's right to represent any
employees in any unit. It is also undisputed that on only
one other occasion was a guard ever selected as a divisional
representative and that had occurred more than 20 years
ago when the guards were included in a single contract
with the production and maintenance employees. At that
time , the Respondent recognized and dealt' with the
individual as a representative of both guards and non-
guards. Moreover, it was stipulated that, after the issuance
of the complaint herein and during the week before the
hearing in this case , Union President Pavlo advised the
Respondent's industrial relations manager, Joel Root, that
if Wyse, in his capacity of plant guard, discovered a
production and maintenance employee at the refinery
engaging in illegal conduct or conduct otherwise prohibit-
ed by the Company, and that should a grievance be filed,
he (Pavlo) would see to it that Wyse would not act as a
divisional representative with respect to such a grievance.
7 Harley Davidson Motor Co., Inc, AMF, 214 NLRB No 62 (1974),
Lufkin Telephone Exchange, Inc., 191 NLRB 856, 857 (1971); General
Electric Company v. N LR B, 412 F.2d 512,516-517 (C A 2, 1969), enfg. as
modified 173 NLRB 253 (1968).
9 General Electric, 173 NLRB at 254.
9 See, for example, N.LR.B v. International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, 274 F.2d 376 (C.A 3, 1960), where the union refused to
bargain with the company representative who had previously occupied a
B. Concluding Findings
It is the General Counsel's position that the Respondent
breached its bargaining obligation in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the, Act in refusing to recognize and deal
with Plant Guard Wyse as one of the Union's seven duly
elected divisional representatives authorized to negotiate
separate contracts for the production and maintenance
unit and the plant guard unit and to handle grievances
usually of the employees in their respective division. The
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that it is under
no statutory duty to recognize Wyse as the representative
of any production and maintenance employees in view of
the fact that he is a plant guard who was elected to
represent both production and maintenance employees
and guards in his division in disregard of the requirement
of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act that guards and nonguards
must be kept completely separated for bargaining purpos-
es.
It is a well-settled principle of law that each party to a
collective-bargaining relationship generally has the right to
designate the individuals it desires to represent it in
negotiating' contracts and handling grievances and the
other party is dutybound to deal with such representatives.
An employer who breaches this duty violates Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, while a defaulting union violates
Section 8(b)(3) and (1)(A) of the Act.7 To be sure, the right
to designate a bargaining representative is "not absolute
and . . . [it has] been held [to be] subject to limitation in
unusual situations where the chosen representative is so
tainted with conflict or so patently obnoxious as to negate
the possibility of good-faith bargaining."s In such situa-
tions, the employer or the union, as the case might be, has
been relieved of the bargaining obligation.9 Of course, the
burden of establishing justification for the refusal to
recognize a bargaining agent rests on, the party claiming it
and, as one court observed, the burden is a "considerable"
one 10
From my evaluation of the evidence, I am not persuaded
that the Respondent justified its refusal to recognize and
deal with Divisional Representative Wyse. There can be no
question-and the Respondent does not argue otherwise-
that there is nothing unlawful in the Respondent's
voluntary recognition of the Union as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the Company's plant guards in their
own separate unit and the maintenance of a contractual
relationship with that organization which originated almost
20 years ago, even though the Union during that entire
period has also been representing the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees in a separate unit.
The only restrictions imposed by Section 9(b)(3) are on the
Board and they preclude the Board from finding appropn-
ate a unit which contains both guards, as therein defined,
and nonguards, and from certifying a labor organization as
confidential position in the union; NLRB. v. Kentucky Utilities Company,
182 F.2d 810 (C.A 6, 1950), where the company refused to bargain with a
union representative who had evidenced hostility toward the company;
Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, 108 NLRB 1555 (1954), where the
employer was absolved for refusing to bargain with the union which was
conducting a competitive business.
iO General Electric Company v N LRB., 412 F 2d at 517.
AMOCO OIL COMPANY
the representative of employees in a guard unit if that
union admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or
indirectly with an organization which admits to member-
ship nonguard employees.ii Manifestly, Section 9(b)(3)
does not invalidate a voluntary bargaining relationship
between a nonguard union and an employer respecting the
guards. Indeed, a contract executed by such parties may,
under the Board's contract-bar principles, serve as a bar to
a representation petition for an election, despite the fact
that the union also represents production and maintenance
employees.12
Notwithstanding the Respondent's continuing recogni-
tion of the Union as the bargaining representative of the
Company's production and maintenance employees and
the guards in separate units, the Respondent contends, in
substance, that its refusal to recognize and deal with Wyse
as the Union's designated divisional bargaining representa-
tive of the production and maintenance employees in
division 6 could not be found to be violative of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act because the unit in which Wyse
was elected is composed of guards and nonguards and is
therefore inappropriate under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.
Moreover, the Respondent argues, since Wyse is a plant
guard and the representative of guards and nonguards in a
mixed unit, he is potentially subject to a conflict in interest
and loyalty owing to the Respondent and the Union and
for this reason the Respondent is justified in refusing to
deal with him on behalf of the production and mainte-
nance employees.
With respect to its first contention, the Respondent
would be correct that no violation could be found if the
divisions which the Union created for its own internal
administrative purposes were actually bargaining units.
This would be so for the reason that Section 9(b)(3) makes
a mixed unit of guards and nonguards inappropriate for
any purpose, 13 and Section 8(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor
practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collectively
with the representatives of his employees" in an appropri-
ate unit only. But this is not the situation here. The long-
established bargaining units, conceded to be appropriate,
have in nowise been altered by the election of Plant Guard
Wyse and, indeed, it appears that the Respondent and the
Union are still conducting their labor relations business on
such basis. As previously shown, the Union regularly
utilizes its internal election machinery and procedures for
the purpose of selecting divisional representatives who
comprise the Union's board of directors, one of whose
functions is to negotiate with the Respondent separate
contracts for the production and'maintenance employees
and the plant guards. In addition, each divisional repre-
sentative generally handles grievances of employees in his
division. It is thus clear that the Union's grouping of its
constituents into divisions is designed solely to aid the
Union in performing its bargaining functions and not to
create independent bargaining units. Accordingly, I find
11 The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc, 134 NLRB
451, 452(1961).
12 Ibid. In fact, when the qualified petitioning union in Burns subse-
quently filed a timely petition, the Board permitted the contracting
nonguard union to appear on the ballot but stated that, if that union won
the election, the Board, in accordance with Sec. 9(b)(3), would not certify
that organization because of its affiliation with a nonguard union. However,
1107
that the Respondent's denial of recognition to Wyse as one
of the Union's duly designated bargaining representatives
falls within the proscription of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
As for the Respondent's asserted divided loyalty conten-
tion as support for its refusal to recognize Wyse, I fail to
see how Wyse's selection as a bargaining representative
creates a potentially greater loyalty problem as regards the
enforcement of plant rules against production and mainte-
nance employees than that which could possibly inhere in
the Union's representation of those employees and the
guards. If, as it appears to be the case, the Respondent has
had no fears during all these years the Union represented
the employees that the Union would compromise the
guards in the enforcement of plant rules against the
production and maintenance employees to the detriment of
the Respondent, I find it difficult to believe that the
Respondent can be genuinely concerned about Wyse's
loyalty and performance of his plant duties if he is
permitted to serve as one of the Union's bargaining
representatives in negotiating and administering the
contracts covering both employee units. Certainly, the
Respondent retains its managerial prerogative to discipline
any employee who neglects his duties.
In sum, I find that no unusual or exceptional circum-
stances have been shown which justify the Respondent's
refusal to recognize Wyse as one of the Union's duly
designated bargaining representatives. Accordingly, I find
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is
recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found and in like and related conduct and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. As I have found that the Respondent has unlawfully
refused to recognize Plant Guard William 0. Wyse as one
of the Union's duly designated divisional representatives
authorized, among other things, to negotiate contracts and
handle grievances, it is recommended that the Respondent
be ordered promptly to recognize and deal with Wyse as
such representative. I find, contrary to the Respondent's
contention, that Section 9(b)(3), which only precludes the
Board from certifying a nonguard union as the representa-
tive of guards, does not prohibit the issuance of the
remedial order herein recommended, especially in view of
the fact that the Respondent has for many years recognized
the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
Company's guards and production and maintenance
employees in separate units and has continued to do so as
of the time of the hearing-14 The posting of an appropriate
notice is also recommended.
the Board also noted that it would certify the arithmetical results. 138
NLRB 449,452 (1962)
13 Burns, 134 NLRB at 452.
14 Cf. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation v. N L RB, 382
F 2d 366 (C.A 3, 1967), enfg as modified 159 NLRB 1757 (1966), cert.
denied 389 U.S 1039 (1967)
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following units are appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
(a) All employees of the Respondent under the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Manufacturing and
Research and Development Departments at its Whit-
ing, Indiana, plant, excluding confidential employees,
all employees represented by Research and Engineer-
ing Professional Employees Association and by Office
and Professional Employees International Union,
Local 423, and all guards, nurses, professional employ-
ees, Engineering Assistants, as specified in NLRB
certification 13-RC-7108, and supervisors as defined
by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(b) All non-supervisory Plant Security Division
employees of the Respondent under the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Manufacturing Department of the
Respondent's Whiting, Indiana Plant.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate units within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and deal with William O.
Wyse as the Union's duly designated divisional bargaining
representative of division 6 with'respect to production and
maintenance employees, as well as plant guards, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 15
The Respondent, Amoco Oil Company, Whiting, Indi-
ana, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to perform its statutory bargaining obliga-
tion owing to Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, Local 7-1, Inc., as the exclusive
representative of the Respondent's employees in the
separate appropriate units described below, by refusing to
recognize and deal with any mdividual duly designated by
the above-named Union as its representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining, negotiating contracts and
processing grievances relating to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the employees in the described appropriate
units:
(1) All employees of the Respondent under the
supervisory jurisdiction, of the Manufacturing and
Research and Development Departments at its Whit-
ing, Indiana, plant, excluding confidential employees,
all employees represented by Research and Engineer-
ing Professional Employees Association and by Office
and Professional Employees International Union,
Local 423, and all guards, nurses, professional employ-
ees, Engineering Assistants,' as specified in NLRB
certification 13-RC-7108, and supervisors as defined
by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(2), All non-supervisory Plant Security Division
employees of the Respondent under the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Manufacturing Department of the
Respondent's Whiting, Indiana, Plant.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
bargaining rights through the above-named Union, which
are guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith notify the Union in writing that it will
recognize and deal with William O. Wyse, as the divisional
bargaining representative of division 6, concerning the
negotiation and administration of the parties' collective-
bargaining agreements and the handling of grievances and
other matters relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
(b) Post at its refinery in Whiting, Indiana, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
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.
16 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
AMOCO OIL COMPANY 1109
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to perform our statutory
bargaining obligation owing to Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, -AFL-CIO,
Local 7-1, Inc., as the exclusive representative of our
employees in the separate appropriate units described
below, by refusing to recognize and deal with any
individual duly designated by the above-named Union
as its representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining, negotiating contracts, and processing griev-
ances relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the employees in the described appro-
priate units:
(a) All employees of the Respondent under the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Manufacturing and
Research and Development Departments at, its
Whiting, Indiana, plant, excluding confidential
employees, all employees represented by Re-
search and Engineering Professional Employees
Association and by Office and Professional
Employees International Union, Local 423, and
all guards, nurses, professional employees, Engi-
neering Assistants, as specified in NLRB certifi-
cation 13-RC-7108, and supervisors as defined
by the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed.
(b) All non-supervisory Plant Security Divi-
sion employees of the Respondent under the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Manufacturing
Department of the Respondent's Whiting, Indi-
ana, Plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their bargaining rights through the above-named
Union, which are guaranteed to them in Section 7 of
the, Act.
WE WILL forthwith notify the Union that we will
recognize and deal with William O. Wyse as the
divisional bargaining representative of division 6,
concerning the negotiation and administration of the
parties' collective-bargaining agreements and the han-
dling of grievances and other matters relating to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
Amoco OIL COMPANY