Amoco Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amoco Production Company and International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local 670, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 16-RC-5824
October 3, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hearings
were held on October 22, 1971, and January 5, 6, and
20, and May 24, 1972, before Hearing Officer Evert
P. Rhea of the National Labor Relations Board. Fol-
lowing the hearings and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 16, the case was
transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, a
brief and a supplemental brief were filed by the Em-
ployer.'
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. We find that the Petitioner and Intervenor 2
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act
who claim to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek a unit
of full-time, hourly rated, limited hour, field and plant
employees, employed by the Employer in its Oklaho-
ma City Area and subareas in the Oklahoma City
Area. The Employer contends in substance that only
a divisionwide unit of employees is appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
Amoco Production Company, a Delaware corpo-
ration, is engaged in the exploration for and produc-
tion of oil and gas. The Employer's principal office is
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its operation is divided into three
divisions: New Orleans, Houston, and Denver. Each
division has two operating departments, exploration
1 Inasmuch as the record adequately presents the issues and positions of
the parties , the Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
2 Amoco Production Employees Federation.
and producing.
The Denver Division, involved herein, is under
the supervision of a vice president and division man-
ager located at the division headquarters in Denver,
Colorado. The Denver Division is divided into three
producing department districts, North, South, and
Southeast. In turn, these districts are divided into ge-
ographical areas, each of which embraces a number of
oil and gas fields. The areas are divided into subareas.
The Southeast District is composed of the Liberal
Area and, the area involved herein, the Oklahoma
City Area.
The Oklahoma City Area maintains an office in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The area is divided into
three subareas; namely, Watonga, Fault Block, and
Countryline. The production at Watonga is primarily
gas production; production in Fault Block and Coun-
tryline is oil production.
The hierarchy of the Oklahoma City Area is
headed by an area superintendent who is responsible
for the operations within the area. Under the area
superintendent and working in the three subareas are
area foremen, field foremen, and gang foremen, all in
a supervisory capacity. These foremen direct the work
of the various hourly rated employees working in the
subareas. The area superintendent reports to the dis-
trict production superintendent who, in turn, reports
to the division production manager.
The Employer states that the functions of the
division administrative unit necessitate centralized
managerial control by the division office. The Em-
ployer further states that the division manager has full
authority with respect to collective-bargaining mat-
ters within the division and that working conditions
are uniform throughout the division. Therefore, the
Employer contends that only a divisionwide unit
would be appropriate.
However, the record indicates that personnel
matters are frequently disposed of at the area level.
Applications for employment are normally given to a
field foreman or the area superintendent. Although
hiring is done pursuant to a division personnel fore-
cast, the decision as to who will be hired is made at
the area level. The area superintendent then sends to
the division office a form indicating the selection of
a new employee. There is no evidence in the record
that the district superintendent has ever overruled a
decision as to hiring made at the area level.
Grievances are filed by employees with their im-
mediate supervisors. Such matters are usually re-
solved at this local level. If necessary, the grievance is
forwarded to the area superintendent to be resolved.
A grievance remaining unresolved may be forwarded
to the division office. However, the record indicates
that division personnel are seldom involved with
grievances.
199 NLRB No. 78
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY 485
Transfers and promotions of hourly rated em-
ployees within the Oklahoma City Area are made by
the area superintendent. Interarea transfers and pro-
motions are made at the division level. In regard to the
interchange of hourly rated employees in and out of
the Oklahoma City Area, the record reveals that dur-
ing the past 3 years and in a unit of approximately 90
hourly rated employees, there have been 11 perma-
nent transfers. Eight of these transfers were for com-
pany convenience. The record discloses that
temporary transfers between areas occur occasionally
but not on a regular basis.
The Employer adduced evidence to indicate that
the Oklahoma City Area is in a state of depletion' and
that the area's boundary may thus have to be altered.
However, there apparently are no definite plans to
change the boundary line of the area. Further, the
record indicates that by 1977 the rate of depletion
may have affected only about 10 employees within the
area.
We conclude that the Employer is not adminis-
tratively so centralized in its producing operations as
to require, as the Employer urges , a finding that only
a divisionwide unit of employees is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. Neither do we find
that the rate of depletion within the Oklahoma City
Area is so significant as to preclude a finding that the
area unit is appropriate. Within the Denver Division
7 "Depletion" is defined by the Employer to mean a predicted irreversible
decline in oil and gas production , which is evident in advance of complete
exhaustion of supply
of this Employer, the Board has previously found an
area unit to be appropriate. See Pan American Petrole-
um Corporation, 179 NLRB 180, enfd. 444 F.2d 328
(C.A. 10), cert. denied 404 U.S. 941. There is no histo-
ry of divisionwide bargaining for the Denver Division
and even assuming that the divisionwide unit is an
appropriate unit, no union seeks to represent these
employees on such basis. Section 9(b) of the Act di-
rects the Board to "decide in each case whether, in
order to assure employees the fullest freedom in exer-
cising rights guaranteed by the Act, the unit appropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining shall be the
employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision
thereof ...." We find that the hourly rated employees
within the Oklahoma City Area constitute a stable
and identifiable group of employees with common
interests. Accordingly, we conclude that the area unit
sought by the Petitioner and the Intervenor is appro-
priate.
We find the following employees of the Employ-
er constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time, hourly rated, limited hour,
field and plant employees, employed by the Em-
ployer in its Oklahoma City Area and subareas
in the Oklahoma City Area; excluding all other
employees, working foremen, office-clerical em-
ployees, supervisors, guards and watchmen as de-
fined by the Act.
[Direction of election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]