Champlin Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1377 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of CHAMPLIN REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL
`YORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-594.-Decided January 16, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Renkel, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in producing, refining, and marketing
crude oil and its products, with its principal plant and office in Enid,
Oklahoma. It maintains warehouses in Denver, Colorado, Lincoln
and Grand Island, Nebraska, and Mason City and Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. The Employer owns and operates crude oil pipelines in Okla-
homa,. and a finished products line running from Enid to Rock Rapids,
Iowa. It also owns, and leases to individual operators, about 500 serv-
ice stations, 300 in Oklahoma and the remainder in Texas, Kansas,
Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota. This proceeding is lim-
ited. to 2 warehouses, 1 for merchandise and the other for equipment,
both located in Enid, Oklahoma.
During the 1-year period preceding the hearing, the Employer's
total sales amounted to over $1,000,000, at least 50 percent being sales
directly to points outside the State of Oklahoma. During the same
period;' total purchases exceeded $1,000,000, an estimated 5 percent
consisting of equipment and machinery purchased from sources out-
side Oklahoma.
It is clear, and the Employer does not deny, that when its opera-
tions' are viewed as a whole, the Employer is engaged in interstate
commerce ^ within the meaning of the Act. However, the Employer
makes a two-fold argument challenging our jurisdiction in this case.
It contends first, that for jurisdictional purposes we must consider
separately each bargaining unit " in 'a 'proceeding, and second, that
92 NLRB No. 198.
1377
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each such unit must independently do enough interstate business to
satisfy our own jurisdictional requirements. We find no merit in
this argument. The record shows that the activities carried on in the
Employer's two warehouses, which are merely a part of its marketing
department, are closely integrated with the sales and distribution ac-
tivities which constitute the Employer's interstate business. We find,
therefore, under well-established principles,' that for purposes of this
proceeding the Employer's operations involved here affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests a unit composed of all employees at the
Employer's merchandise warehouse and equipment warehouse' in
Enid, Oklahoma. Alternatively, it requests separate units for each
warehouse. The Employer contends that the single unit requested
is inappropriate because the employees in the two warehouses have
dissimilar interests and working conditions. It makes no affirmative
contention respecting the appropriateness of separate units for these
employees.
The Enid warehouses, one-half block apart, are 2 miles distant from
the Employer's principal refinery. The merchandise warehouse pro-
vides storage and distribution facilities for the Employer's local
marketing activities. Under the direct supervision of the Enid sales
agent, it is operated by five employees. Three of these are truck
drivers who load and unload trucks and make local deliveries; one
is a warehouseman who occasionally makes small local deliveries;
the fifth is a clerk, who is excluded by agreement between the parties.2
These employees, who are paid by the hour and are hired directly
by the sales agent, have no special skills. Other than their ability
to drive, they need only a familiarity with the Employer's products
to be qualified for their jobs.
The equipment warehouse is a storage center and repair depot
for gasoline pumps, lubrication machinery, and related equipment
used in the Employer's many service stations. Employed in this
warehouse are five equipment repairmen and one painter, all hired
by and under the supervision of the construction foreman. They
1 Virginia Electric & Power Co . v. N. L. R. B., 115 F. 2d 414 (C. A. 4, 1940) reed. on
other grounds, 314 U. S. 469; N. L. R. B. v. 'Weyerhaeuser Timber Co ., 132 F. 2d 234
(C. A. 9, 1942).
2 A clerk in the equipment warehouse is also excluded under the same agreement.
CHAMPLIN REFINING COMPANY 1379
are on salary,3 and possess skills not exercised by the merchandise
warehouse employees. They install, paint, repair, and replace equip-
ment used in the Employer's service stations. Fifteen percent of
their work is done outside Oklahoma, and the remainder either at
the warehouse or at service stations within the State. Although
the workers in the equipment warehouse, like the merchandise ware-
house employees, are subject to company-wide employment and va-
cation policies, there is no interchange between these two groups.
Upon these facts, we agree with the Employer's contention that a
single unit joining the employees of both warehouses would be in-
appropriate. That the two groups have essentially different interests
is clearly shown by their separate location, unrelated function, and
entirely dissimilar skills and duties. We perceive no reason, how-
ever, for denying them separate units, each limited to one warehouse.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
(1) All employees of the .Employer at its Enid, Oklahoma, mer-
chandise warehouse, excluding clerks and all supervisors as defined
in the Act; and
(2) All employees of the Employer at its Enid, Oklahoma, equip.
ment warehouse, excluding clerks and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 These employees are under "bell" contract with the Employer , whereby they work a
guaranteed number of hours per month at a fixed hourly rate.