Canfield Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of CANFIELD OIL COMPANY ( PLANT No. 1), EMPLOYER
and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2147.-Decided July 30, 1946
Mr. F. L. Hole, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. C. J. Ossege, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on April 19, 1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article
III, Section 3,1 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, among em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to deter-
mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 24 eligible
voters and that 23 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 20
were for the Petitioner, 2 were against the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10,2 of the Rules and
Regulations, a hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, on May 24, 1946,
before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
1 By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the con-
duct of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial
issues.
2 As amended November 27, 1945 , this Section provides that in instances of prehearing
elections , all issues , including issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct
affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots, shall be heard at the
subsequent hearing.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 1.24.
999
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Canfield Oil Company is an Ohio corporation with plants located
throughout the United States, at which it is engaged in the manufac-
ture and distribution of petroleum products. This proceeding is con-
cerned only with its Plant No. 1, located at Cleveland, Ohio. A sub-
stantial amount of the raw materials used at that plant comes from
sources outside the State of Ohio. The Employer also ships finished
products manufactured at this plant to points outside the State.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer in the
alleged appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer at its Cleveland, Ohio, Plant No.
1, excluding clerical employees and supervisory employees.3 The sole
disagreement between the parties relates to the grease maker, Andy
Ulian, whom the Employer would exclude from the unit on the
ground that he is a supervisory employee within the Board's customary
definition of that term. This disagreement was reflected at the elec-
tion in the challenge of this employee's ballot by the Employer.
The grease maker has complete charge of the grease works and is
directly responsible to the plant superintendent. In addition to per-
forming actual production work himself, he oversees the work of the
other three employees in the grease works and appears to have the
power effectively to recommend changes in the status of these em-
3 The election was held among employees in this alleged appropriate unit.
CANFIELD OIL COMPANY 1001
ployees 4 Accordingly, we find that the grease maker is a supervisory
employee within our customary definition of that term and we shall
exclude him from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Cleveland, Ohio, Plant No. 1, excluding clerical em-
ployees, the grease maker, and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETER31INATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, irrespective
of the counting of the ballot of the grease maker, the challenge to whose
ballot we hereby sustain. Under these circumstances, we shall certify
the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Oil Workers International Union
(CIO), has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Cleveland Ohio, Plant No. 1,
of Canfield Oil Company, excluding clerical employees, the grease
maker, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
4 Although the grease maker has never recommended a change in the status of any of
his subordinates, it would appear that this is due to the fact that no such occasion has
ever presented itself. Indeed, it is admitted that his predecessor had effectively recom-
mended the discharge of a subordinate.
4