Amoco Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
Amoco Production Company and Local Union No.
4-14, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-5285
September 29, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On April 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Ber-
nard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Amoco Production
Company, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der.
MEMBER JENKINS , dissenting:
For the reasons stated in my dissent in North Elec-
tric Company, 165 NLRB 942 (1967), particularly in
view of the fact that 97 employees in the unit who
were not members of the Union were not permitted
to vote, I would not find the election to change affili-
ation valid, and would dismiss the complaint.
The opportunity for participation in the electoral
process by the entire body of those affected by an
electoral decision is the essence of democracy. Exclu-
sion of some of this electorate from the right to vote
inhibits their participation in the electoral process, a
participation which, through discussion and inter-
change of views, may affect the attitudes and votes of
others who are permitted to vote. Thus the effects of
the exclusion cannot be measured by a mere numeri-
cal tally. For this reason, I do not regard as signifi-
861
cant the fact that the proaffiliation majority margin
here exceeded the number of those excluded from
voting.
i We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(ax5) for the reasons set forth by him . We especially note, as did
the Administrative Law Judge , that the votes of the 97 nonmembers would
be insufficient to affect the results of the poll (214 for affiliation and 71
against) assuming all would have voted against such affiliation , and hence,
even under our dissenting colleague's view there would be no basis for
dismissing the complaint.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J . SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me at Houston, Texas, on January 28 and
29, 1975. The charge and amended charge were filed re-
spectively on October 8 and November 13, 1974, by Local
Union 4-14 of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or
OCAW. The amended complaint was issued November 29,
1974, and alleges that Amoco Production Company, Hous-
ton, Texas, Division herein called the Company or Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended.
ISSUES
Did Respondent violate 8(a)(5) and (1) by: (a) withdraw-
ing recognition and abrogating the collective- bargaining
agreement of the parties on September 27, 1974; (b) unilat-
erally abrogating this agreement; and (c) adopting as its
policy certain parts of the said contract that apply to the
unit employees individually.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs were
filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Re-
spondent.
On the entire record of the case, and from my observa-
tion of witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a State of Delaware corporation and its
Houston , Texas, Division, the only division involved in this
proceeding, has its principal office and place of business at
500 Jefferson Building , Houston, Texas, and is engaged in
the business of exploration and production of crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids in 17 States . During the
past 12 months, Respondent purchased goods and materi-
als outside the State of Texas , shipped to it across state
lines , valued in excess of $50 ,000. Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
220 NLRB No. 132
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The basic facts are not in dispute. There have been a
succession of name changes of both Respondent and the
Union. In 1948 the Company's name was Stanolind Oil
and Gas Company . In 1957 the name was changed to Pan
American Petroleum Company. In 1971 the name was
changed to Amoco Production Company. It is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Standard Oil of Indiana.
The Union was originally an independent union known
as Independent Oil Workers Union, Local 14. This union
was certified by the Board on June 17, 1963. Subsequent to
this certification , Respondent changed its name from Pan
American Petroleum Company to its present name, Amoco
Production Company. The Union changed its name to Na-
tional Oil Workers Union, Local 14, herein called Nation-
al. These name changes were recognized in an amendment
to the parties' collective-bargaining agreement . After the
certification the unit was reduced to its present size, as
follows:
All employees employed by the Respondent in its
Houston Division Producing Department in its Cor-
pus Christi, Old Ocean, Hastings and Tyler (Texas)
areas who are assigned to the following hourly-rated
classifications:
Area Unit-Carpenter, Electrician, Electrician
Helper, Facility Plant Operator, Field Automation
Technician, Gang Foreman, Relief; Grader Opera-
tor, Instrument Control Man, Maintenance Man,
Meterman , Operations Technician , Painter, Paraf-
fin Unit Operator, Pumper, Repairman, Separator
Station Operator , Special Pumper-Isolated , Sulfur
Station Operator I, Sulfur Station Operator II, Sul-
fur Station Operator III, Truck Driver Heavy;
Truck Driver, Light; Welder, First Class; Welder,
Second Class (any employee who holds the title
classification Roustabout in combination with any
title classification(s) in the Area Unit on a regular
basis shall be included in the Area Unit);
Plant Operating Unit-Engineer, First Class; Engi-
neer, Second Class, Engineer, Helper, Foreman, Re-
lief Shift, Loader--Gasoline Plant, Plant Laborato-
ry Tester, Power Plant Operator, Power Plant
Operator, First Class (any employee who holds the
title classification Roustabout in combination with
any title classification(s) in the Plant Operating Unit
on a regular basis shall be included in the Plant
Operating Unit);
Area Base Unit-Roustabout, Tractor Driver,
Light;
Other-Camp Tender;
Excluding office clerical employees , professional
employees , and guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Respondent entered into its initial collective -bargaining
agreement on September 1, 1965, covering the employees
in the above-described appropriate unit. After a series of
renewals the contract, which was entered into between a
predecessor union, Independent Oil Workers Union, Local
14, and Respondent , by its terms remains in effect through
February 29, 1976. Thus Respondent had extensive con-
tractual relations with the Union's predecessor labor orga-
nizations.
The principal witness for the General Counsel, Glenn
Davis, testified that he had been a member of National,
which succeeded the Independent , since 1951. He was
elected president on July 1, 1973, and resigned on Septem-
ber 22, 1974, when he was temporarily upgraded to a su-
pervisory position. Respondent denies that the OCAW suc-
ceeded National because it claims the affiliation of the
instant Union was not made in accordance with the re-
quirements and safeguards of the Board . Respondent filed
an RM petition, Case 23-RM-314, which was dismissed by
the Regional Director on November 20, 1974, because the
Union filed a blocking 8(a)(5) charge.
B. Events Leading Up to The Union's Affiliation Election
In 1972 there were two elections conducted by National
regarding the affiliation of National with OCAW. In Sep-
tember 1972 the vote was 157 for and 160 against affilia-
tion. The vote in December 1972 was 163 for and 169
against affiliation. These events led up to the 1974 affilia-
tion election.
C. Steps Taken By National Prior to the Affiliation
Election
Davis was elected president of National in 1973. Several
of National's officers and members requested that another
affiliation election take place. At this point Davis began
discussions with OCAW representatives prior to such an
election. After these talks Davis conducted a postcard
straw vote of National's membership. This straw vote re-
sulted in a 216 to 60 vote in favor of affiliation out of
National's 383 members . Davis then called a meeting on
April 3, 1974, of National's board of directors including
the following executive officers: President Davis; First
Vice President W. O. Putnam; Secretary-Treasurer James
Jackson; and the area vice presidents: Tyler area, Gerald
Cosby; Hastings area, James Richter; Corpus Christi area,
James Lyton; and Old Ocean area, C. Mobley.
At this meeting a full discussion took place and it was
unanimously agreed that an affiliation election take place
as soon as it could be arranged . A series of meetings, nine
in number, were held throughout Respondent's Houston
Division made up of the areas listed above. Notices of
these meetings were posted on National's various bulletin
boards throughout the Houston Division wherein the pur-
pose of the meetings was announced to be the question of
affiliating with OCAW . The meetings spanned the period
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
from April 9 to 14, 1974, on the dates and places listed on
the notices . In addition to union members a representative
of OCAW was present to answer any questions put to him.
The meetings were open to members and nonmembers
alike some of whom entered into the discussion . Questions
concerning voting eligibility arose and those present at the
meetings were told that the vote would be limited to mem-
bers of National . It was explained that membership and
voting eligibility could be acquired by nonmembers by
simply signing a dues deduction form . Some employees of
Respondent , not previously members, did execute such
forms and did vote in the election.
D. The Mechanics of the Election
Because the members were scattered among the several
areas the election was held by mail. On April 28, 1974, all
eligible members were mailed their ballots.
Davis testified that National's secretary-treasurer, Jack-
son, supplied him with mailing lists in February 1974 and
these checkoff lists were kept up to date by monthly
change forms which were supplied by Respondent.
The Union's brief explains the balloting as follows:
On April 28, 1974 the ballots were mailed to all of
Respondent's employees who were , at that time mem-
bers in good standing of Local 14. A total of 382 bal-
lots was mailed out. There were , at that time , approxi-
mately 480 employees in the bargaining unit . Enclosed
with the ballot was a postage paid envelope addressed
to a post office box in Pearland, Texas which had been
rented especially for that purpose. Employees were in-
structed to make their wishes known and return the
ballot in the enclosed envelope before May 15, 1974,
when the ballots were to be counted. They were in-
structed not to sign the ballot. The choice was either
"yes" or "no" to the proposition, "I am in favor of
affiliation with OCAW."
After mail delivery to the post office in Pearland on
May 15, 1974, Davis and the election committee went
to the Pearland post office and obtained the ballot
envelopes from the postal clerk. Neither Davis nor the
election committee had the combination to the post
office box. The ballots were taken to a meeting room
at the Pearland Savings and Loan Association and
counted by the election committee. The results were
214 for affiliation and 71 against affiliation.
After the votes were counted on May 15 a resolution
was adopted and signed by the members of the Board
of Directors of Local 14 and mailed to Respondent on
June 12, 1974.
The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLUTION
Whereas, it is the desire of the membership and offi-
cers of this organization known as National Oil Work-
ers Union , Local 14, that said organization affiliate
with and become chartered by the Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union as a local union
of said International Union because of its prestige and
its ability to provide expert technical assistance and
863
active to the officers and membership of this organiza-
tion; and
Whereas, it is the desire of the officers and member-
ship `of National Oil Workers Union. Local 14, that
the organization, structure, officers and committees of
this organization continue to operate and to carry out
its collective bargaining functions after said affiliation
with said International Union as had been done in the
past and is presently being done;
"NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
A. That this organization apply to Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union (OCAWIU)
for affiliation therewith and for a Charter evidenc-
ing such affiliation as Local 4-14 of said Interna-
tional Union.
B. That this organization presently known as Nation-
al Oil Workers Union, Local 14, be and is hereafter
known as Local 4-14, of the Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union (OCAWIU).
C. That all assets and property of this organization,
including but not limited to its bank account, its
collective bargaining agreements with the Amoco
Production Company, and related pension and in-
surance agreements , be hereafter held by this orga-
nization under the name and style of Local 4-14,
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union (OCAWIU).
D. That this organization continue its relationship
with the Amoco Production Company as the duly
certified and recognized bargaining representative
of the production and maintenance employees of
said company.
E. That the officers and committeemen of this organi-
zation take all steps necessary to accomplish the ob-
jectives set forth hereinabove.
E. Discussion
Respondent did not reply to the notification sent to it by
Jackson, union secretary-treasurer, which letter included
the above-quoted resolution announcing National's affilia-
tion with OCAW. It should be noted that all members of
the Board of Directors (except for Davis who had tempo-
rarily been promoted to a supervisory position) occupied
the same positions as they had held under Local 14 of the
National Union. Meanwhile the former vice president,
W. O. Putnam, became the president of the Union.
When Respondent finally did respond, on September 27,
1974, its response consisted of a lengthy letter sent to each
member of the bargaining unit individually. The reply was
sent by Vice President and Division Manager John Pheni-
cie who advised Respondent's employees that it had filed
an RM petition with the Board (which was dismissed be-
cause the Union filed a blocking 8(a)(5) charge). Phenicie's
letter notified the employees that dues deductions were dis-
continued; that the contract between the Company and
Local 14 was void; and those parts of the contract that
apply to the employees individually were to be continued
as a matter of company policy. There was attached to this
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letter a detailed statement which stated that the provisions
would be continued individually as a matter of company
policy. In the same document Respondent repudiated the
contract in all particulars that related to the rights of the
Union . For example , the arbitration procedure and the
checkoff provisions were "deemed inapplicable " and were
discontinued . This letter of September 27, 1974, was issued
to all employees without consulting the Union. The termi-
nation of many provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement was accomplished by unilateral action on the
part of Respondent . I so find.
F. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent in its brief devotes considerable space to
setting forth the safeguards the Board follows in conduct-
ing a representation case by mail. It discusses the use of an
agreed-upon eligibility list; notices to employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit ; the care exercised by the Board
in protecting its ballots ; and the fact that a tally of ballots
is kept and many of the other factors that surround the
conduct of a Board-conducted election of representatives.
Admittedly the unsophisticated officers of Local 14 did
not comply with strict requirements of the NLRB in the
conduct of a representation election. However , the General
Counsel calls particular attention to the fact that an affilia-
tion or merger election concerns itself with internal union
business . He then sets forth a vastly different set of - criteria
which are applied by the Board to an affiliation election:
1. Has proper notice of affiliation or merger elec-
tions been given to employee members of the affiliat-
ing unions?
2. Has there been a discussion of the affiliation or
merger issues by the members of the representative
unions?
3. Was the affiliation or merger carried out by a
secret ballot election in which the eligible voters could
freely vote their desires?
4. Have any of the employees involved complained
of or taken any action opposed to a change of repre-
sentatives?
Notice of the impending election was posted in all of the
Respondent 's locations for about 3 weeks. The notices spe-
cifically stated that the election was to determine if the
union members desired affiliation with OCAW. Nine meet-
ings were held in the Respondent 's areas at which full dis-
cussions took place on this matter . In addition to
National 's board of directors there was also present at each
of the meetings a representative of OCAW who was pres-
ent to answer questions concerning the advantages of af-
filiation with his union.
The ballots were protected, all votes were cast in secret
and all ballots were mailed to a central point in stamped
self-addressed envelopes . They were mailed to Pearland,
Texas . On May 15, 1974 , the election committee, appointed
by the directors , counted the ballots and announced the
result to Vice President and Division Manager Phenicie by
registered mail, return receipt requested , on June 12, 1974.
Out of 383 ballots mailed to union members the results
were 214 for affiliation and 71 against affiliation. There
were approximately 480 employees in the bargaining unit.
Even if all of the approximately 97 nonmembers had voted
against affiliation , their votes would not have affected the
outcome of the election.
A further and significant point is that the record is de-
void of any information to the effect that any of
Respondent 's employees either complained of or took any
action opposed to the change of affiliation . Thus, all the
requirements of a valid affiliation election were complied
with which resulted in the affiliation of Local 14 into Local
4-14 of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO.
G. Concluding Findings and Analysis
One of the arguments advanced by Respondent is that
the affiliation vote was defective because nonmembers of
Local 14 were not permitted to vote. The record shows that
all nonmembers who chose to become members during the
3-week posting of the election notices were given the op-
portunity to attend the meetings and vote. Some did at-
tend , did join and were mailed ballots . More persuasive on
this point is the fact that the Board majority in East Dayton
Tool & Die Company, 190 NLRB 577 (1971) stated, "More-
over . . . even if all the votes of the nonmembers were to
be taken as voting 'no' the results of the election would not
be affected." As explained , supra, in the instant case, even
if all the approximately 97 nonmembers had voted against
affiliation their votes would not have affected the outcome.
It is to be noted that there was no challenge to the voting
method , no evidence of any improprieties, no protests that
there was insufficient notice , and no evidence that any of
the officers of Local 14 opposed the merger.
Although Respondent mentions in its brief that there
was a schism in describing what occurred there is nothing
in the record to support this assertion. There was no frag-
mentation of the local. It remained the same after the affili-
ation as it did prior to this event.
As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in
N.L.R.B. v. Harris-Woodson Company, Inc., 179 F.2d 720
(C.A. 4, 1950), in rejecting an employer's contention that a
change in name and affiliation of the bargaining represen-
tative relieved it of the obligation to bargain:
It was the local union which the employees chose as
their bargaining representative ; and the fact that they
desired it to represent them in collective bargaining
was not affected by its change either of name or affili-
ation . . . Metaphysical arguments as to the nature of
the entity with which we are dealing should not be
permitted to obscure the substance of what has been
done or to furnish a smoke screen behind which the
Company may with impunity defy the requirements of
the statute that it bargain with the representative that
its employees have chosen. The identity of that repre-
sentative . . . was not changed either by its change of
name or its change of affiliation. (179 F.2d at 723).
Accord: Continental Oil v. N.L.R.B., 113 F.2d 473, 477.
Under the circumstances of this case , the Regional Direc-
tor properly concluded that participation by the bargaining
unit employees in the decision to change affiliation was
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
"immaterial," and that the amending procedure could
properly be invoked.
In the case of Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc., 206
NLRB 834 (1973), the certified local union changed its
name and affiliation following a merger of its International
(Bookbinders) and Lithographers. The Board adopted Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Arnold Ordman's finding that the
employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize
the local following the merger. In finding that violation
Judge Ordman noted at 836:
In all respects Local 16B was a mere continuation of
Local 16 with no change except in affiliation. And,
most important, at no time before or since the merger
has any dissident group appeared or claimed to be the
old Local 16.
On all the facts of record, it is plain that Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 16B, AFL-CIO, is a
continuation of, a successor to and/or an alter ego, of
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , Local 16,
AFL-CIO, succeeding to all certification rights of its
predecessor . Insofar as Respondent owed a bargaining
obligation to Bookbinders Local 16, that obligation is
equally binding upon Respondent with respect to
Graphic Arts Local 16B. Uniform authority supports
this conclusion . Carpinteria Lemon Assn. v. N.L.R.B.,
240 F.2d 554, 557 (C.A. 9, 1956), cert. denied, 354 U.S.
909; N.L.R.B. v. Harris-Woodson Co., 179 F.2d 720,
722-723 (C.A. 4, 1950); New England Foundry Corpo-
ration, 192 NLRB 785 (1971).
It is clear from the record that after the affiliation Local
14 ceased to exist . I am persuaded by the argument ad-
vanced by counsel for the Union that " . . . unless Re-
spondent is ordered to bargain with Local 4-14, OCAW,
the employees will have lost their right to representation
simply because they saw fit to exercise a statutory right of
voting to affiliate with an international union."
In sum, I conclude and find that Local 14 did in fact
complete and perfect its affiliation with Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union under the name of
Local 4- 14. It is the successor and a continuation of Local
14. As such when Respondent unilaterally declared the
agreement it has had with the predecessor , Local 14, to be
void and refused to bargain with the said Union it was
guilty of violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I find
that on and after its receipt of the Union's bargaining re-
quest of September 27, 1974, Respondent defaulted in that
obligation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Amoco Production Company is an em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act.
2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local Union 4-14, constitute labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local Union No. 4-14, has been a successor to, and
alter ego of Local 14 succeeding to all certification rights of
its predecessor.
865
4. The foregoing labor organizations constitute a single
continuing entity, herein identified as the Union.
5. The appropriate unit is as follows:
All employees employed by the Respondent in its
Houston Division Producing Department in its Cor-
pus Christi, Old Ocean, Hastings and Tyler (Texas)
areas who are assigned to the following hourly-rated
classifications:
Area Unit-Carpenter, Electrician, Electrician
Helper, Facility Plant Operator, Field Automation
Technician, Gang Foreman, Relief; Grader Opera-
tor, Instrument Control Man, Maintenance Man,
Meterman, Operations Technician, Painter, Paraf-
fin Unit Operator, Pumper, Repairman, Separator
Station Operator, Special Pumper-Isolated, Sulfur
Station Operator I, Sulfur Station Operator II, Sul-
fur Station Operator III, Truck Driver, Heavy;
Truck Driver, Light; Welder, First Class; Welder,
Second Class (any employee who holds the title
classification Roustabout in combination with any
title classification(s) in the Area Unit on a regular
basis shall be included in the Area Unit);
Plant Operating Unit-Engineer, First Class; Engi-
neer, Second Class, Engineer, Helper, Foreman, Re-
lief Shift, Loader-Gasoline Plant, Plant Laborato-
ry Tester, Power Plant Operator, Power Plant
Operator, First Class (any employee who holds the
title classification Roustabout in combination with
any title classification(s) in the Plant Operating Unit
or a regular basis shall be included in the Plant Op-
erating Unit);
Area Base Unit-Roustabout, Tractor Driver,
Light;
Other-Camp Tender;
Excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
6. The Union was and is, at all times relevant here, the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit described above.
7. Respondent, by refusing since on or about September
27, 1974, to recognize, or meet and bargain with the Union
as the representative of its employees in the unit described
above violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8. The foregoing unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, an order will be
entered requiring Respondent to cease and desist from en-
gaging in the unfair labor practice found and from like or
related unfair labor practices.
Affirmatively, Respondent will be directed to recognize,
and upon request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above-described ap-
propriate unit and to embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon request of Local Union No. 4-14, Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, re-
instate as of September 27, 1974, the collective-bargaining
agreement originally entered into by said Local Union
4-14's predecessor and Respondent as extended and con-
tinued in effect by them and comply with the provisions
thereof, including processing of any and all grievances
through the arbitration stage which were being processed
or which were attempted to be brought on and after Sep-
tember 27, 1974.
Finally, the remedy will include the customary provi-
sions relating to notice posting and reporting requirements.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I recommend the following:
ORDERI
Respondent, Amoco Production Company, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize , or bargain collectively, upon
request, with Local Union No. 4-14, Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by the Respondent in its
Houston Division Producing Department in its Cor-
pus Christi, Old Ocean, Hastings and Tyler (Texas)
areas who are assigned to the following hourly-rated
classifications:
Area Unit-Carpenter, Electrician, Electrician
Helper, Facility Plant Operator, Field Automation
Technician, Gang Foreman, Relief; Grader Opera-
tor, Instrument Control Man, Maintenance Man,
Meterman, Operations Technician, Painter, Paraf-
fin Unit Operator, Pumper, Repairman, Separator
Station Operator, Special Pumper-Isolated, Sulfur
Station Operator I, Sulfur Station Operator II, Sul-
fur Station Operator III, Truck Driver, Heavy;
Truck Driver, Light; Welder, First Class; Welder,
Second Class (any employee who holds the title
classification Roustabout in combination with any
title classification(s) in the Area Unit on a regular
basis shall be included in the Area Unit);
Plant Operating Unit-Engineer, First Class; Engi-
neer, Second Class, Engineer, Helper , Foreman, Re-
lief Shift, Loader-Gasoline Plant, Plant Laborato-
ry Tester, Power Plant Operator, Power Plant
Operator, First Class (any employee who holds the
title classification Roustabout in combination with
any title classification(s) in the Plant Operating Unit
on a regular basis shall be included in the Plant
Operating Unit);
Area Base Unit-Roustabout, Tractor Driver,
Light;
Other-Camp Tender;
Excluding office clerical employees , professional
employees , and guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) Bargaining directly and individually with the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with the
efforts of Local Union No. 4-14, Oil, Chemical and Atom-
ic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, to bargain col-
lectively on behalf of the employees in the above-described
unit.
(d) Engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices
proscribed by the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Recognize and bargain collectively, upon request,
with the above-named labor organization, as set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy ," and em-
body any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request of Local Union No. 4-14, Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
reinstate as of September 27, 1974, the collective-bargain-
ing agreement originally entered into by said Local Union
No. 4-14's predecessor and Respondent as extended and
continued in effect by them and comply with the provi-
sions thereof, including processing of any and all griev-
ances through the arbitration stage which were being pro-
cessed or which were attempted to be brought on or after
September 27, 1974.
(c) Post in its Houston Division Producing Department
in its Corpus Christi, Old Ocean, Hastings, and Tyler (Tex-
as) areas , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of Respondent , shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
1 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.
2 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
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 PRODUCTION COMPANY 867
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 recognize, or bargain collec-
tively, upon request with Local Union No. 4-14, Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by Respondent in its
Houston Division Producing Department in its Cor-
pus Christi, Old Ocean, Hastings and Tyler (Texas)
areas who are assigned to the following hourly-rated
classifications:
Area Unit-Carpenter, Electrician, Electrician
Helper, Facility Plant Operator, Field Automation
Technician, Gang Foreman, Relief; Grader Opera-
tor, Instrument Control Man, Maintenance Man,
Meterman, Operations Technician, Painter, Paraf-
fin Unit Operator, Pumper, Repairman, Separator
Station Operator, Special Pumper-Isolated, Sulfur
Station Operator I, Sulfur Station Operator II, Sul-
fur Station Operator III, Truck Driver, Heavy;
Truck Driver, Light; Welder, First Class; Welder,
Second Class (any employee who holds the title
classification Roustabout in combination with any
title classification(s) in the Area Unit on a regular
basis shall be included in the Area Unit);
Plant Operating Unit-Engineer, First Class; Engi-
neer, Second Class, Engineer, Helper, Foreman, Re-
lief Shift, Loader-Gasoline Plant, Plant Laborato-
ry Tester, Power Plant Operator, Power Plant Oper-
ator, First Class (any employee who holds the title
classification Roustabout in combination with any
title classification(s) in the Plant Operating Unit on
a regular basis shall be included in the Plant Oper-
ating Unit);
Area Base Unit-Roustabout, Tractor Driver,
Light;
Other-Camp Tender;
Excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT bargain directly and individually with
the employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT engage in like or related unfair labor
practices.
WE WILL, on the request of Local Union, No. 4-14
of the above Union reinstate as of September 27, 1974,
the collective-bargaining agreement originally entered
into by said Local Union No. 4-14's predecessor and
Respondent as extended and continued in effect by
them and comply with the provisions thereof.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively, upon
request, with the above-named Union as the exclusive
representatives of the above-described employees and
if an agreement is reached we will sign such an agree-
ment.
HOUSTON, TEXAS, DIVISION OF Amoco PRODUCTION
COMPANY