Atlantic Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 359 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL Nos. 310
AND 318, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL FIELD, GAS `'YELL AND
REFINERY WORKERS OF AMERICA
Cases Nos . C-54 and R-18.-Decided March 19, 1936
Oil Refining Indnstrg-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: functional
coherence ; geographical differences ; plant-Representatives: proof of choice.
petition designating-Collective Bargaining: adjustment of grievances differen-
tiated from ; refusal to negotiate with representatives ; refusal to recognize
representatives as exclusive--Certification of Representatives* after investiga-
tion , but without election.
Mr. Mortimer Kollender for the Board.
Mr. Norwwn Landis, of Brunswick, Ga., for Employees Representa-
tion Plan.
Mr. Samuel G. Zack, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
A charge having been filed with the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region by Local Nos. 310 and 318, International Association
of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America (herein-
after referred to as the Locals), the National Labor Relations Board,
by the said Regional Director, issued and duly served its complaint,
with accompanying notice of hearing, on December 27, 1935, charg-
ing the Atlantic Refining Company, Brunswick, Georgia (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent), with having engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1) and (5) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7), of
the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935 (herein-
after called the Act), by reason of its refusal to bargain collectively
with the Locals. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges that the employees of the Brunswick, Georgia
plant of the respondent, (hereinafter called the Brunswick plant),
with the exception of the clerical and supervisory staffs, constitute
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; that the Locals, before
August 31, 1935, had been designated by the majority of the em-
ployees in suchi unit as their representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, were
the exclusive representatives of all the employees in said unit; that
on or about August 31, September 27 and December 13, 1935, the duly
97571-36-vol r-24 359
360 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized representatives of the Locals requested the respondent to
bargain collectively; and that on such dates, and thereafter, the re-
spondent refused to bargain collectively with the Locals as the exclu-
sive representatives of all the employees in such unit.
The respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying that the
Brunswick plant constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining; denying "that the respondent's employees at
its Brunswick plant designated Local Unions Nos. 310 and 318, In-
ternational Association of Oil Field, Gas well and Refinery Workers
of America, as a unit for exclusive collective bargaining", and ad-
mitting that the respondent did refuse to bargain with the Locals
as the exclusive representatives of its employees, but alleging that
it advised the Locals that it was "ready and willing to meet and
bargain with any representative of or group of its employees." The
answer further alleges that the production of petroleum products at
the Brunswick plant is no part of interstate commerce.
The Locals also petitioned the Board for an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On January 7, 1936, the Board, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article II, Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, ordered the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region to conduct an investigation and in connection there-
with to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Pur-
suant to such order, notice of hearing was issued by the Regional
Director on January 7, 1936 and duly served upon the parties.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing accompanying the complaint, a
hearing was held in Brunswick, Georgia, on January 9 and 10, 1936,
before John A. Lapp, Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
Upon the suggestion of the Trial Examiner, the respondent, reserv-
ing its rights, waived the requirement of a five-day notice for hear-
ing on the petition, and the same was consolidated with the hearing
on the complaint. The findings of fact made below are relevant to
all the issues in the consolidated case.
Although counsel for the respondent was present at the hearing,
he did not participate therein, although the superintendent of refin-
ing at the Brunswick plant testified in response to a subpoena. The
Employees' Representation Plan, Brunswick Unit, asked for and
was granted permission to intervene, and a representative appeared
in its behalf. Full opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine wit-
nesses and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
to all parties. In accordance with Article II, Section 28, of said
Rules and Regulations-Series 1, the parties were afforded a reason-
able time for oral argument, but the only argument was made by
the representative of the Employees' Representation Plan. No briefs
were filed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 361
On motion of counsel for the Board, the complaint was amended
by the Trial Examiner by the insertion of the words, "at the said
Brunswick plant" in the fourth line of paragraph 3 after the words,
"petroleum products", and in the ninth line of the same paragraph
after the words, "produced by it". The respondent, reserving its
rights, waived objection to the amendment.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 30 of said Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, the Trial Examiner prepared and filed an intermediate
report, and found the allegations of the complaint sustained. The
intermediate report was duly filed and served, and thereafter the
respondent filed exceptions thereto with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the stenographic
transcript of the hearing and the documentary and other evidence
received at the hearing, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS
A. Generally
1. The respondent is and has been since April 29, 1870, a corpora-
tion organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State
of Pennsylvania, having its principal office and place of business at
260 South Broad Street, in the City of Philadelphia, County of
Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania.
2. The following table lists subsidiaries of the respondent and the
amount of stock it holds in each and the extent of its voting power.
Name of Subsidiary
Percentage
of stock
Percentage
of Voting
owned Power
Atlantic Company-------------------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Caribean Oil Fields of Venezuela ----------------------------------------------- 100 100
Venezuelan Atlantic Refining Co----------------------------------------------- 100 100
Mara Oil Field Corp
Atlantic Cc----------------------------------------------------------------- 50
V A R. Co---------------------------------------------------------------- 50 100
Atlantic Oil Producing Cc------------------------------------------------------ 09 99 99 99
Atlantic Petroleum Purchasing Corp------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlanttc Pipe Line Cc -------------------------------------------------------- 100 99 99
Atlantic Oil Shipping Co....................................................... 100 100
Keystone Pipe Line Co--------------------------------------------------------- 99 43 99 43
Atlantic Refining Co of Cuba-------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co (Del ) ----------------------------------- ---------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co (Germany) ----------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co of Africa ------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co of Brazil ------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co of Germany, Me --------------------- ------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co of Spain --------------- ---------------------------------- 100 100
Gulf of Maraciabo Corp
V A R Cc---------------------------------------------------------------- 50 ------------
Atlantic Cc ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- 50 100
Basin Co ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Campania Petrolera Carco----------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic Refining Co , Inc---------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Richmond Oil Co -------------------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Red' C" Oil Cc----- - ------------------------------------------------------ 100 100
Atlantic Oil Storage Co--------------------------------------------------------- 100 100
Atlantic West African Co , Ltd------------------------------------------------ 100 100
Companhia Portugueza Des Petroleos Atlantic--------------------------------- 100 100
Reserve Petroleum Co
1st preferred ---------------------------------------------------------------- 95 89 80
2nd preferred --------------------------------------------------------------- 75 35
Atlantic North Africa Co -------------------------------- ----------------------- 100
i
Atlantic Angola S. A----------------------------------------------------------- 100 100
362 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The general character and location of the principal plants and
other important units of the respondent and its subsidiaries are as
follows :
Crude oil production : Producing leases are owned in Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico . Non-producing leases are owned
in Louisiana as well as in the above -mentioned states, and in Cuba
and Venezuela . On December 31, 1934, the respondent had 951 full
equivalent oil wells . Average daily net production for December,
1934 was 25,293 barrels.
Trainsportation : Four pipe lines are owned in Texas and New
Mexico with 921.57 miles of trunk lines and pipe and 366.80 miles of
gathering line. The respondent has water terminals on the Neches
River at Atreco ( near Port Arthur , Texas ), Texas City , Texas and
Harbor Island, Texas . One pipe line 187.64 miles long runs from the
East Texas oil field to the Atreco Terminal . Another line 660 miles
long connects the Atreco Terminal with the Hobbs , New Mexico, oil
field and the Coleman, Ward and Winkler County, Texas fields. A
short line serves the Barbero Hill, Texas field. Another short line
serves the Refugio, Greta and Pettus, Texas fields. Twenty-two
ocean -going tankers with a total capacity of 196,702 d. w. t. (dead
weight tonnage ) are owned by the respondent , in addition to 8 tugs,
3 motor barges and 11 lighters. A pipe line for carrying prod.urts
from the Philadelphia refinery to various points in Eastern Pennsyl-
vania is also owned by the respondent.
Refineries : Refineries are located at Philadelphia , Pittsburgh,
Franklin , Pennsylvania and Brunswick , Georgia, with a total daily
average capacity of 92,000 barrels.
Domestic marketing : 23 bulk terminals, 412 plants and 607 service
stations are used to distribute the respondent 's products in the States
of Massachusetts , New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut , New Jersey,
Pennsylvania , Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio and West Virginia.
Foreign marketing : Various marketing facilities are located in
Brazil , Africa, Germany, Belgium and Portugal, and are used by
subsidiary companies to market the respondent 's products.
B. The Brunswick plant
4. Robert Stewart, the respondent's superintendent of refining at
the Brunswick plant, testified as to the respondent's business at the
plant. During the year 1935 the Brunswick plant used an average of
3,912 fifty-gallon barrels of crude oil daily in the manufacture of its
finished products. Ninety percent or more of the crude oil came from
Texas, and the balance from either Mexico or Venezuela.
5. Crude oil is brought to the Brunswick plant by ocean-going
tankers, which dock at the wharf at the Brunswick plant and which
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 363
discharge their cargo directly into storage tanks, by connecting pipes
and the use of pumps.
6. The finished petroleum products are shipped from the refinery
largely by means of ocean-going tankers, although some are shipped
by tank cars and a very small amount by tank trucks. The tankers
are loaded by means of gravity through connecting pipes from
storage tanks.
7. The products which are refined and produced at the Brunswick
plant from crude oil are gasoline and solvents, light fuel oil, heavy
fuel oil and asphalt. 81/2% of the crude oil is lost in the refining
process. During 1935, 60% was refined into gasoline, 40% of which
was sent to bulk plants of the respondent in Georgia and to other
points within the state, and 60% of which was sent out of the State
of Georgia, mainly to North Carolina, New York, Florida and Rhode
Island. During the same year, 28% of the crude oil was refined into
fuel oil, some of which went to New York and South Carolina, but
most of which went to the respondent's Philadelphia refinery. The
asphalt produced at the Brunswick plant during 1935 was sent to
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Tennessee.
The principal bulk plants of the respondent in the region served by,
the Brunswick plant are located in Jacksonville, Florida, Wilmington,
North Carolina, Savannah, Georgia, and Miami, Florida. These
plants handle gasoline only. Deliveries to them are made by tank
steamers. Mr. Stewart, although not certain, testified that he thought
the bulk plants did distribute part of their supply of gasoline to
adjacent states.
8. The following summary table showsthe destination, amounts and
percentage of all the products processed and shipped from the
Brunswick plant during 1935.
State Gallons Per cent State Gallons Per cent
Georgia _____________________ 34,450,821 48 68 South Carolina ---------- ---- 1,904,716 2.69
Alabama______________ ______ 463,772 .66 North Carolina_____________ 13,510,599 19 09
Tennessee ___________________ 67,974 . 10 Philadelphia refinery ------- 8,982, 700 12 68
Florida______________________ 5,927,136 8 38
New England States -------- 5,461,204 7 72 Total _________________ 70,769,922 100.00
9. The crude oil storage tanks at the Brunswick plant have a
capacity of about 300,000 barrels. Inasmuch as the normal require-
ments of the plant amount to approximately 4,000 barrels a day, the
storage tanks, if full, would provide for approximately 75 days' opera-
tion. The amount in storage varies between 50,000 barrels and 200,000
barrels. With the plant running normally, the supply would last
about 9,5 to 26 days and at the low point of storage it would last not
more than 12 to 15 days.
364 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The refinery has storage for 150,000 barrels of gasoline, 156,000
barrels of heavy fuel oil, 16,000 barrels of lighter grades of fuel oil,
and 16;000 barrels of road oils and asphalt. On the day of the hearing
there was on hand 100,000 barrels of fuel oil and about 35,000 barrels
of gasoline and naphtha. The supply of gasoline would meet normal
demands for about 17 to 20 days. Asphalt is used seasonally. In the
fall and winter there is a large supply; in the spring and'sunlihdr;
when road-building takes place, the asphalt flows directly to con-
sumers, and the supply is almost continually cleaned out.
D. There is a continuous flow of crude oil into the Brunswick plant
and a continuous flow of products out of the Brunswick plant. All
of the crude oil received at the Brunswick plant comes to it directly
from the producing properties of the respondent and its subsidiaries
in Texas, Mexico and Venezuela. The finished products are sent out
of the Brunswick plant, on orders from the sales department in Phila-
delphia, to the respondent's service stations and customers in many
states. Gasoline is shipped to bulk plants or terminals of the respond-
ent in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and the New England States,
as well as to service stations of the respondent and to customers in the
same`states. The bulk plants in-turn redistribute to the respondent's
service stations and to wholesale accounts. The fuel oil is mainly
sent to the respondent's Philadelphia refinery and from that point
flows directly to the consumer.
11. The operations of the respondent constitute a continuous flow
of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States.
H. THE BRUNSWICK PLANT AS A UNIT
12. Three of the four refineries operated by the respondent are
located in the State of Pennsylvania, and one, the Brunswick plant,
in the State of Georgia. The respondent is and has been authorized
to engage in business in the State of Georgia since March 3, 1919.
13. The entire process used in refining the crude oil and the manu-
facture of the various petroleum products is performed and completed
at the Brunswick plant. The plant is under the immediate control
and supervision of managerial personnel different from that at the
other plants.
14. Because of the geographical differences between the Brunswick
plant and the other plants and units of the respondent, the labor
problems of the employees at the Brunswick plant differ from those
of the respondent's employees elsewhere. The rates of pay for certain
operations at the Brunswick plant are different from those at the
respondent's other plants. The Brunswick plant is approximately
900 miles from the other refineries and from the home office of the
respondent, and therefore a prompt and clear exchange of views be-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 365
tween the employees at Brunswick and the employees at the other
refineries is difficult.
15. The Employees' Representation Plan, which purports to cover
not only the employees at the Brunswick plant but the. employees of
the respondent at its other refineries and properties as well, was
put into effect by the respondent in. October, 1934, several months
after the Locals were organized. By organizing as they did before
the Plan was put into effect, and by clear manifestations since, the
employees at the Brunswick plant have definitely indicated their
desire to bargain as a unit, through the Locals and not through
the Plan. In view of this and the other circumstances of this case,
we find that the employees, with the exception of the clerical and
supervisory staffs, engaged at the Brunswick plant of the respond-
ent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
III. THE RESPONDENT AND LOCAL NOS. 310 AND 31S
16. There were at the time of the hearing , 123 employees at the
Brunswick plant , exclusive of the clerical and supervisory staffs.
No claim was made in the answer or at the hearing that there was
a greater number on the dates the complaint alleges the respondent
refused to bargain collectively.
17. The Locals are labor organizations which were organized in
April, 1934 for purposes of collective bargaining . The entire mem-
bership of the Locals is composed exclusively of employees at the
Brunswick plant.
18. At a meeting of the members of Local No. 310 on July 18,
1935, a so-called Contract Committee , consisting of T. McClelland,
chairman, and J. W. Hawthorne , E. F. Rittenhouse , R. V. Woods
and S . A. Ward, was appointed and instructed to draw up a draft
agreement dealing with wages, hours and working conditions at
the Brunswick plant and to meet with the management for the
purpose of collective bargaining . On August 2, 1935, Local No.
318 designated the same committee to represent it in collective bar-
gaining with the management.
19. On August 18, 1935, the Secretary of Local No. 310 was
instructed to send a letter to Mr. M. J. Welsh, manager of the
Brunswick plant, requesting a conference with the Contract Com-
mittee. As a result of this letter , a meeting between the Committee
and Mr., Stewart, Plant Superintendent , and Mr . Welsh, took place
on August 31, 1935, at the latter 's office. The chairman of the. Com-
mittee informed the officials of the respondent that the Locals repre-
sented a majority of the employees in the Brunswick plant, and
requested the negotiation of a collective agreement dealing with
366 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, wages and working conditions. The officials refused to recog-
nize the Locals as the exclusive representatives of all the employees
in the Brunswick plant, and refused to enter into negotiations for
an agreement.
20. Subsequent to the meeting on August 31, two petitions were
circulated, one designated Local No. 310 as the agency for collec-
tive bargaining, and the other, in similar terms, designated Local
No. 318. The petitions were signed by 93 and 21 employees respec-
tively. Thus, the Locals were designated by a large majority of
the 123 employees in the unit which we have found to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
These petitions stated that the employees signing them consti-
tuted a substantial majority, had organized in Local Nos. 310 and
318 for the purpose of collective bargaining, and had designated
the Locals to enter into collective bargaining with their employer.
The petitions went on to state, " We, therefore, respectfully request
a conference with the representatives of the management at its earliest
convenience to begin negotiations, to work out a collective bargain
and to agree on terms of employment and orderly methods of settling
differences in relations between management and employees."
The petitions were offered in evidence and made part of the record.
21. At meetings on September 27 and December 13, 1935, the Locals
again requested the respondent to enter into collective bargaining
with them as the representatives of all the employees of the Bruns-
wick plant, but the respondent refused to recognize the right of the
Locals to represent the employees of the plant. The signed petitions
were shown to officials of the respondent and went unquestioned by
them, and the officials made no claim that the signatures were not the
bona fide signatures of a great majority of the employees of the
Brunswick plant.
22. The respondent, in its answer, did not deny that a majority
of the employees of the Brunswick plant were represented by the
Locals. It contended, however, that the Locals had no right to bar-
gain for all the employees of the plant. At each of ( the three meet-
ings, the manager stated that the Act could not compel the respond-
ent to arrive at an agreement with the employees, and that he would
have to have a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board before
he would accept the Brunswick plant as a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
23. At each one of the meetings that the Committee had with the
respondent, it had with it the draft agreement which was intended
to be used as the basis of negotiations leading toward an agreement.
The proposals in the draft dealt, basically, with matters relating
to wages, hours and conditions of work. At each meeting when the
draft was proffered, Mr. Welsh declined to accept it or enter into
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 367
a discussion concerning it; he did no more than state that the re-
spondent would not enter into an agreement, and that it proposed to
maintain the status quo and was willing to consider with officials
of the Locals any grievances they might care to present.
24. The officials of the respondent did not approach the negotia-
tions with an open mind nor did they make a reasonable effort to
reach a common ground of agreement. The respondent has taken
the position that it is obligated merely to meet with the representa-
tives of its employees, and discuss grievances with them as it would
with individual employees.
25. On August 31, September 27 and December 13, 1935, the re-
spondent refused to bargain collectively with the representatives of
its employees.
26. The aforesaid refusal of the respondent to bargain collectively
with the representatives of its employees tends to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF EXCEPTIONS
The respondent's statement of exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
intermediate report includes exceptions to practically all of his find-
ings of fact , conclusions and recommendations . More specifically,
it contends that the Trial Examiner erred in finding that an interrup-
tion of the flow of crude oil from Texas, Venezuela and Mexico to the
Brunswick plant and of the subsequent distribution of the finished
product outside the State of Georgia, would burden or stop interstate
commerce; that the employees of the Brunswick plant, with the ex-
ception of the clerical and supervisory staffs, constitute a proper
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining; that the Locals repre-
sented a majority of the workers of the Brunswick plant; and that
the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Locals.
The statement of exceptions also contends that'the Trial Examiner
erred in failing to make certain enumerated findings, hereinafter
discussed.
As to those exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings relative to
interstate commerce, appropriate unit, the designation of the Locals
by a majority and the respondent's failure to bargain collectively, the
Board is of the opinion that the Trial Examiner did not err in his
findings and that such findings are correct and justified by the entire
record in the case. Certain other exceptions do not merit discussion
in view of the findings of fact made herein and because they are
Immaterial . We will, however, deal with several exceptions to the
failure of the Trial Examiner to make certain findings.
Exception No. 13 states that "the respondent at all times con-
ferred with the Locals, the Employees' Representation Plan and
368 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual employees on platters of alleged grievances and com-
plaints and that such grievances have been happily adjusted". Sec-
tion 8, subdivision (5) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice
to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of em-
ployees; and Section 9(a) provides that representatives designated
by a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining shall be the exclusive representatives
of all the employees in such unit. Collective bargaining means more
than the discussion of individual problems and grievances with em-
ployees or groups of employees. It means that the employer is obli-
gated to negotiate in good faith with his employees as a group,
through their representatives, on matters of wages, hours and basic
working conditions and to endeavor to reach an agreement for a
fixed period of time. The respondent's conception of its duty is
merely to consider any grievances its individual employees may care
to present, discuss them and then act upon then as it may deem fit.
(See Finding of Fact 22.) It is evident that the grievances that
the respondent discussed and was willing to discuss were the indi-
vidual problems of its employees and matters of ordinary detail, and
did not pertain to the employees as a group. The recognized sub-
jects of collective bargaining are wages, hours and basic working
conditions; therefore, the duty of an employer to bargain collectively
is not at all exhausted when he considers individual grievances.
Exception No. 14 points out that there have been no labor com-
plaints as to working conditions that have not been satisfied at all
times. That all individual complaints as to working conditions have
at all times been satisfactorily settled does not constitute a proper
discharge of the respondent's obligations tinder Section 8, subdivision
(5) of the Act, and cannot be said to preclude the employees from
engaging in an effort to bargain concertedly with their employer on
matters of wages, hours and basic, working conditions. The failure
to bargain collectively is the basis of the present complaint, not
respondent's failure to adjust individual complaints.
Exception No. 18 excepts to the failure to find that "the effort of
the Locals to have the respondent sign a contract drawn by the Locals .
was coercive and invaded the respondent's liberties". The Locals did
not intend nor did they demand that the respondent sign the con-
tract which they submitted. At each conference the Locals sub-
mitted a draft agreement which they intended to be used as the
basis for negotiation in their effort for collective bargaining. (Find-
ing. of. Fact. 22.) In view- of the position taken- by the respondent
at the conferences, the parties never reached the point at which the
discussion of an agreement could begin.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
TnE PETITION
369
- The finding in paragraph 20 above, that the Locals have been
designated by a majority of the employees operates as a certification.
The taking of a secret ballot pursuant to Section 9(c) is therefore
unnecessary, and the petition filed by the Locals for certification of
representatives will be denied.
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
Upon all findings of fact hereinabove made, and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a matter
of law that : -
1.' The employees of the respondent at its Brunswick plant, except
those engaged in a clerical or supervisory capacity, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Local Nos. 310 and 318,
International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Work-
ers of America, having been designated as representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining by a majority of the employees in
the Brunswick plant, except those engaged in a clerical or supervisory
capacity, are the exclusive representatives of all the employees in
said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employ-
ment.
3. The respondent has refused to bargain collectively with Local
Nos. 310 and 318, the representatives of its employees, and by reason
of such refusal, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
1. The respondent, Atlantic Refining Company, and its officers and
agents shall:
-a. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with Local
-Nos: 310 -and 318, International Association of Oil Field,. Gas Well
and Refinery Workers of America, as the exclusive representatives
of all its employees in the Brunswick plant, other than those engaged
in a supervisory and clerical capacity, for the purposes of collective
370 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act:
Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Nos. 310 and 318, Inter-
national Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers
of America, as the exclusive representatives of all its employees in
the Brunswick plant, other than those engaged in a supervisory and
clerical capacity, for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
2. The petition for certification of representatives, filed by Local
Nos. 310 and 318, International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well
and Refinery Workers of America, is hereby denied.
[SAME TITLE
AMENDMENT OF DECISION
March 20, 1,936
The National Labor Relations Board, having duly issued its de-
cision in this matter on March 19, 1936, and being fully advised
in the premises, hereby issues its Amendment of Decision, making
the following changes and additions :
1. By adding to the Findings of Fact in the decision the following
paragraph :
26. By its refusal to bargain collectively with the representa-
tives of its employees, the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. By changing paragraph 26 of the Findings of Fact in the deci-
sion to paragraph 27.
3. By adding to the Conclusions of Law in the decision the follow-
ing paragraph :
4. By interfering, restraining, and coercing its employees- in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the
Act.
4. By changing paragraph 4 in the Conclusions of Law in the
decision to paragraph 5.