Amoco Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 1002 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amoco Production Company and National Oil Work-
ers Union, Local 16. Case 16-CA-4634
May 10, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a charge filed on January 28, 1972, by Na-
tional Oil Workers Union, Local 16, herein called the
Union, and duly served on Amoco Production Com-
pany, herein called the Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 16, issued a com-
plaint on February 10, 1972, against Respondent, al-
leging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on November 4, 1971,
following a Board election in Case 16-RC-5766, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commencing
on or about December 2, 1971, and at all times there-
after, Respondent has refused, and continues to date
to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative, although the Un-
ion has requested and is requesting it to do so. On
February 22, 1972, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On February 29, 1972, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Respondent filed a response
to the Motion for Summary Judgment, reiterating
contentions presented in its answer. Subsequently, on
March 3, 1972, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter filed a response to Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 16-RC-5766, as the term "record" is defined in Secs . 102.68 and 102.
69(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended . See LTV
Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd . 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4, 1968);
Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151; Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.
Supp. 573 (D.C. Va., 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378, enfd. 397 F.2d 91
(C.A. 7, 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent's answer denies that the unit
found by the Regional Director is appropriate for
collective bargaining and that the Union's certifica-
tion is valid. In support of its position the Respondent
asserts that no question of representation within the
meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act is presented, the
unit is not appropriate for collective bargaining, and
no election should have been directed as the Union's
petition was untimely. The responses to the Motion
for Summary Judgment and the Notice To Show
Cause do not raise any additional issues. As the an-
swer admits, these reasons were "pointed out by Re-
spondent in detail in the ... representation case." We
thus agree with the General Counsel that the Respon-
dent is merely attempting to relitigate issues that were
settled in the representation proceeding.
Anticipating the integration of the Respondent's
Fort Worth Division, which the Union represented,
into the three remaining divisions, the Union filed a
petition to represent hourly rate employees in the
Midland District, a part of the Fort Worth Division
to be integrated into the Houston Division. The Re-
spondent objected that the Union's petition was un-
timely filed, that the Midland District was an
accretion to the Houston Division already repre-
sented by the National Oil Workers Union, Local 14,
and that only a divisionwide unit was appropriate.
The Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, issued September 14, 1971, rejected the Re-
spondent Employer's contentions and directed an
election in the petitioned-for unit. The Regional Di-
rector found the petition not untimely filed because
the parties' contract urged by the Respondent Em-
ployer as a bar was one of indefinite duration. He also
found the Midland District was not an accretion to
the Houston Division because the district survived as
a distinct operational entity, there was a lack of em-
ployee interchange and common immediate supervi-
sion between them, and the two areas were separated
geographically. Finally, he found a divisionwide unit
was not the only appropriate unit since the district
was a geographic production unit and an administra-
tive subdivision of the Employer and since no labor
organization was seeking to represent a larger group.
The Respondent then requested Board review of the
Regional Director's decision. The request was denied
196 NLRB No. 140
AMOCO PRODUCTION CO.
by the Board on October 8, 1971, as raising no sub-
stantial issues warranting review.
Pursuant to the Regional Director's direction, an
election was held in which the Union received a ma-
jority of the votes cast. In the absence of objections
to the conduct of the election, the Union was certified
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence or special cir-
cumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior representation proceeding?
All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and the Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that the Respondent has not raised any issue
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice
proceeding. We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the production and sale of petroleum and
petroleum products in various States of the United
States , including Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma,
with an office and principal place of business at 500
Jefferson Building, Houston, Texas. During the past
year, the Respondent shipped goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from its facilities in the State of Texas to
places outside the State.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Oil Workers Union, Local 16, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules
and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(1) and 102.69(c).
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
1003
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time, hourly rate, limited hour, field
and plant employees employed by Respondent in
its Midland District in Texas and New Mexico
(Andrews, Hobbs, Levelland, Odessa, and
Slaughter producing areas) exclusive of all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On October 27, 1971, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 16, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit on November 4, 1971, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about November 11, 1971, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit. Commencing
on or about December 2, 1971, and continuing at all
times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative for collec-
tive bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since December 2, 1971, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded'the services of their select-
ed bargaining agent for the period provided by law,
we shall construe the initial period of certification as
beginning on the date Respondent commences to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union as the recognized
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See
Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Com-
merce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226,
229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S.
817; Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amoco Production Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. National Oil Workers Union, Local 16, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All full-time, hourly rate, limited hour, field and
plant employees employed by Respondent in its Mid-
land District in Texas and New Mexico (Andrews,
Hobbs, Levelland, Odessa, and Slaughter producing
areas) exclusive of all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
4. Since November 4, 1971, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about December 2, 1971, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Respon-
dent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, Amoco
Production Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment with National Oil Workers Un-
ion, Local 16, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the following appro-
priate unit:
All full-time, hourly rate, limited hour, field
and plant employees employed by Respondent in
its Midland District in Texas and New Mexico
(Andrews, Hobbs, Levelland, Odessa, and
Slaughter producing areas) exclusive of all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Midland District facilities in Texas and
New Mexico copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. 1005
vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it foi 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of-employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All full-time, hourly rate, limited hour,
field and plant employees employed by Re-
spondent in its Midland District in Texas
and New Mexico (Andrews, Hobbs, Level-
land, Odessa, and Slaughter producing are-
as) exclusive of all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Na-
tional Oil Workers Union, Local 16, as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"
Dated By
AMOCO PRODUCTION
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building,
819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.