Cities Service Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cities Service Oil Company and Oil , Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , Petitioner. Cases
16-RC-5002, 16-RC-5011, and 16-RC-5036
April 16, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Thomas P. Sheridan.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended,
and by direction of the Regional Director for Region
16, this case was 'transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were
filed by the Employer and the Petitioner, which have
been duly considered.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board finds:
1. The Employer-is engaged in-commeice within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate'the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. a ;' i`
2. The labor organization involved seeks` to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of petroleum products throughout the United States.
Its operations comprise eight separate and distinct
"groups" and "divisions," each in the charge of an
individual who reports directly to the company president.
One "group," the Natural Gas Liquids Group, consists
of, six operating divisions, one of which is the Natural
Gas Liquids Operations Division (NGL). The NGL is
responsible for the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of gas-producting facilities in various
States. The individual facilities, employing from 2' to
28 employees, are under the direction of a plant superin-
tendent (in some cases there is a common supervisor
for several small plants) who reports directly to one
of four area superintendents. Of the approximately 37
' The Employer has also filed a motion requesting that the case
be set for oral argument before the Board Since we believe that
the record and the briefs adequately present the contentions of the
parties, and in view of the fact that our decision adopts the Employer's
position, we deny the motion
facilities in the NGL, 2 are pipeline terminals and the
remainder are gasoline facilities which convert natural
gas and oil into commercial products such as propane,
butane, and natural gasoline.
Petitioner currently represents the employees in 20
of these facilities in a"single, multiplant unit , and the
employees in 3 other plants in a single unit. With the
exception noted below, there has been a long and exten-
sive history of bargaining on a multiplant basis dating
back to 1937, when the Employer first recognized Peti-
tioner in a contractual unit of production and mainte-
nance employees in eight of its Oklahoma plants. Subse-
quent to this initial recognition, the parties agreed to
include new' facilities in the then-existing contractual
unit without Board elections. However, since approxi-
mately 1958, the Employer has changed its position
and now'demands proof of Petitioner's majority before
extending recognition. 'If recognition is accorded, the
Employer has insisted upon collective-bargaining negoti-
ations before placing any new plant in the larger contrac-
tual unit. However, as noted, three plants have not
been so placed in the multiplant unit; instead, they
constitute a separate three-plant bargaining unit.
Thus, there are 2 bargaining units - the 3-plant
unit and'the larger multiplant unit consisting of 20 plants.
Of the remaining plants in the NGL, approximately
12 are unrepresented. One plant, a pipeline storage
facility, is represented by the Teamsters.
Petitioner seeks to represent three unrepresented
plants located in Waco and Corpus Bay, Texas and
Rodman, Oklahoma. It requests that the employees of
each plant be granted the opportunity to determine
whether they wish to be represented in the larger 20-
plant unit. If a majority at any plant votes against
representation, that plant will remain unrepresented
In the event that its requests are denied, Petitioner
has indicated that it does not seek to represent any
of the plants on a single-plant basis. The Employer
concedes that each of the three plants constitutes a
separate appropriate unit and is willing to agree to
elections on such a basis. The Employer opposes, howev-
er, Petitioner's request for elections which will only
permit employees of the three plants to be represented
in the existing unit, arguing, inter alia, that the resultant
multiplant unit would be an inappropriate unit for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes, and therefore beyond the
Board's power to create.
The record establishes that the Waco, Corpus Bay,
and Rodman facilities are located in 2 of the 4 geographic
regions which encompass the' NGL division and are
respectively located 150, 80, and 75 miles from the
nearest plants in the larger 20-plant bargaining unit.
The three plants are each under the immediate control
of three different plant superintendents who are also
responsible for other plants. The superintendents deter-
mine for each plant the hours to be worked, vacation
scheduling, overtime, and other immediate plant prob-
lems. These superintendents in turn report to one of
the four area superintendents. The plants in the 20-
plant unit are scattered throughout the 4 geographic
regions of the NGL. The plants in the proposed unit
182 NLRB No. 6
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY
have no special geographic relationship, nor do they
comprise an administrative division of the Employer's
operations.
The record further establishes that employees through-
out the Employer's operations share substantially similar
fringe benefits, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, irrespective of whether they are
represented for collective-bargaining purposes. Also,
seniority is maintained on a companywide basis, and
job applications for new vacancies are accepted through-
out the Employer's operations.
It is clear that the requested multiplant unit does
not meet any of the normal criteria which might justify
it as appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes-
mutual consent of the parties, administrative coherence,
geographic cohesiveness, or established bargaining histo-
ry. In such circumstances, as more fully set forth in
PPG Industries,2 single-plant units can be combined with
a larger multiplant unit over the employer's opposition
only if the record establishes that the resultant unit
would be distinguished by such shared factors as com-
mon terms and conditions of employment, substantial
uniformity of wage systems and fringe benefits, substan-
tial integration of operations, interchange of employees
within unit lines, and the like. Here, there is no inter-
change within the proposed unit and employee contact
is extremely limited; the petitioned-for plants, located
approximately 150, 80, and 75 miles from the nearest
plants in the larger, multiplant unit, are autonomous
and have no product integration with each other or
with plants in the existing unit; and local plant superin-
tendents are responsible for the day-to-day operations
of the plants. While wages and benefits are similar
at each plant in the proposed 23-plant unit, this is
not a factor peculiar to these plants, since all employees
in the NGL enjoy substantially the same benefits.
Accordingly, we find that the employees of the peti-
tioned-for plants and the existing 20-plant unit do not
share a sufficient community of interest to warrant com-
bining them into a single unit.
.We further find, however, that each of the three
plants constitutes a separate appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we will direct
elections among the following employees and, if a majori-
ty of such employees in any unit votes for Petitioner,
the Regional Director will issue a certification of repre-
sentative to such effect:
(a) All operation and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's Waco, Texas, natural gaso-
line plant, excluding all other employees, including office
13
clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) All operation and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's Corpus Bay, Texas, natural
gasoline plant, excluding all other employees, including
office clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(c) All operation and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's Rodman, Oklahoma, natural
gasoline plant, excluding all other employees, including
office clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
As Petitioner indicated at the time of the hearing
that it did not desire to represent these plants on a
single,-plant basis, it may withdraw its petitions if it
does not wish to proceed to separate elections, in which
case the following Direction of Elections will be disre-
garded.
[Direction of Elections3 omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH, concurring in part and dis-
senting in part: I am unable to agree with the conclusion
of my colleagues that the employees of the three plants
herein should not be accorded the opportunity of deciding
for themselves whether they desire to be represented
in the larger 20-plant unit. My disagreement is based
upon my belief that the employees of the three plants
share a sufficient community of interests with those
employees in the larger unit to warrant finding the resul-
tant unit appropriate. I am, however, also in agreement
with the additional finding of my colleagues that each
of the three plants may constitute a separate appropriate
unit and that elections may properly be directed at
each plant.
x PPG Industries, Inc , 180 NLRB No 58
In order to insure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote, all parties to the elections should have access to a list of
voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with
them Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-
Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed
that elention eligibility lists, containing the names and addresses of
all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of this Decision
and Direction of Elections The Regional Director shall make the lists
available to all parties to the elections No extension of time to file
these lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the elections whenever proper objections
are filed