Cities Service Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS dOARD
Cities Service Oil Company and Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 16-RC-5918
November 27, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerry W.
Dobbs on March 29, 30, and 31, 1972. 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. There-
after, briefs were filed by the Employer and the
Petitioner which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding 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:
I The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2 The labor organization involved seeks to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing 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. One of its basic production divisions is
the Natural Gas Liquids Group which consists of six
operating divisions including the Natural Gas Liq-
uids Operations Division which is the division
involved herein. At the time of the hearing, there
were within the Operations Division 37 gas-process-
ing plants spread throughout the central and western
parts of the country. In addition, there are four
nonproduction facilities within this division that
provide either storage facilities or maintenance work.
The number of employees in each plant ranges from
Cato Service Oil Company, 182 NLRB 12,13
a low of one at the Crowley, Louisiana, plant to the
twenties at some of the larger plants. As to collective-
bargaining units at the present time, there are three
existing bargaining units, a 3-plant unit and a 21-
plant unit represented by the Petitioner and a single-
plant unit at the Lowell, Michigan, storage terminal
represented by the Teamsters Union.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all
unrepresented classified gas-processing plant em-
ployees in the Operations Division of the Natural
Gas Liquids Group at the remaining 16 operating
plants. Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all
unrepresented classified employees in the Operations
Division of the Natural Gas Liquids Group, or,
stated differently, a unit including employees at 3
unrepresented facilities providing maintenance and
storage which it would include with the 16-plant unit.
The Employer contends that only separate units at
each of the processing plants is an appropriate unit,
and that a unit composed of all unrepresented gas-
processing plant employees has no basis either in fact
or law.
The Employer, in support of its position, contends
that each plant is a separate and distinct autonomous
unit; that each plant produces different end products
pursuant to individual operating or processing
facilities tied in to each plant's source of supply
which is unique to that plant; that each plant is
separately supervised and at the plant level is
operated without any effect or impact from or
toward any of the other plants within the division,
either as to personnel requirements or production;
that there is no requirement that employees of one
plant interchange or communicate with the employ-
ees of another plant in the course of their employ-
ment; and that even the end result of the production,
i.e., the marketing of the finished product, varies
from plant to plant, some plants distributing to local
customers while the production of others goes into
pipelines for transmission to more distant points. In
addition, the Employer points out that in 1970, the
Board, in another case i involving a petition by the
Petitioner herein for a multiplant unit limited to
three of the unrepresented plants, found:
. . . The three plants are each under the
immediate control of three different plant super-
intendents who are also responsible for other
plants. The superintendents determine for each
plant the hours to be worked, vacation schedul-
ing, 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 through out the 4
geographic regions of the NGL. The plants in the
200 NLRB No. 74
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY 471
proposed unit have no special geographic rela- mitigated against our carving out a unit of three
tionship, nor do they comprise an administrative plants also supports our present finding that the
division of the Employer' s operation . multiplant residual unit is an appropriate unit. In
I t 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 history.
The Petitioner, in support of its request for a
"multiplant" residual unit , contends that this unit
will encompass all of the Employer 's unrepresented
employees in the NGL Operations Division. It
further contends that the particular facts of this case
support such a unit in that of the 16 unrepresented
plants I of these plants is staffed by but one
employee, 5 plants have but two employees, and 3
others have but three employees . As to the one-man
plant , the Petitioner points out that under Board
precedent , it would not be established as a separate
unit, and that as to the two- and three -men units
collective bargaining would be totally unrealistic.
The Petitioner also contends that the record now
before us clearly establishes sufficient facts to
support the conclusion that a multiplant unit of the
16 unrepresented plants (plus the 3 plant support
facilities ) can either be a separate appropriate unit or
alternatively that these plants can be merged into the
existing unit if the employees so elect . In support of
this contention , the Petitioner points out that there is
little basic difference between any of the plants as to
their products , methods of operation , personnel
policies, and conditions of employment. In addition,
the Petitioner points out that during the 2-year
period prior to the hearing herein, there were 51
permanent transfers from one plant to another, that
maintenance personnel go from plant to plant on a
daily basis, that all new plants at startup generally
are staffed by employees, either temporary or
permanent , from existing plants both represented
and unrepresented , and that plant superintendents
have supervisory authority over plants both repre-
sented and unrepresented.
In view of the unusual circumstances of this case,
we agree with the Petitioner that a unit of all of the
Employer' s unrepresented employees would consti-
tute an appropriate unit . Unlike the facts underlying
our decision in 1970, the record now before us
encompasses , not 3 plants carved out of a total of 16
unrepresented plants, but rather , all of these unrepre-
sented plants. In our opinion , many of the facts that
1970, some of the factors relied on in rejecting the
three-plant unit being added to the existing unit were
that there was no interchange between the petitioned
for plants and the existing unit , there was geographic
separation, the plants were in effect autonomous,
and day-to-day supervision was basically carried on
at the individual plant level . At the same time the
Board, in 1970, also relied on the fact that as to the
three plants , wages, fringe benefits, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment were similar to
the wages and benefits of all the Employer 's plants in
the division . We also noted that seniority is main-
tained on a companywide basis, and the records then
and now show that openings in new plants , as well as
the existing unrepresented plants, are subject to
being filled by employees from any other plant in the
division bidding for the job.
From the above , it is clear that our conclusion
reached in 1970 was not, as contended by the
Employer , predicated on the fact that the single-
plant unit was the only appropriate unit . Rather, that
Decision clearly shows that the three plants peti-
tioned for possessed identity factors that would
support separate appropriate units as well as multi-
plant units that were not otherwise arbitrarily
structured . We do not agree with the Employer's
contention that the facts as they were presented then,
as well as the facts in the record now before us,
require the conclusion that the single-plant units are
the only appropriate units. Rather , we are persuaded
by the record before us that there are factors present
that support the Petitioner 's claim for a residual
multiplant unit including all of the Employer's
unrepresented employees in its Operating Division.
All of these employees enjoy almost identical
conditions of employment and fringe benefits; labor
relations are centralized , there is a degree of
interchange that is not insubstantial , and, although
the various plants do possess some degrees of
uniqueness , the record indicates that the basic skills
required by a large majority of the employees are
possessed and utilized by all of the employees
regardless of which plant employs them.
While not decisive for our conclusion herein, we
are further persuaded by the Petitioner 's contention
that to find only single-plant units appropriate would
in effect permanently deny to employees employed
at one-man facilities any opportunity to participate
in the collective -bargaining process or to refrain
therefrom . The Board need only choose an appropri-
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate unit; it is not required to select the most
appropriate unit.2 As the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit said in N L.R.B. v. J. W. Wood
Manufacturing Company, 466 F.2d 201 (August 23,
1972):
There are a multitude of factors which the Board
and the Courts have employed as indicia in cases
where the issue has been single versus multi units,
including: operational integration of the units;
geographical proximity; authority of the local
unit supervisor, especially with regard to matters
that traditionally are the subject of collective
bargaining, such as hiring, firing, discipline, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and benefits; type
of work done by the employees in the unit;
numerical size of the units; uniformity of wages,
hours, working conditions and benefits; contact
between employees at one unit and those at other
units; interchange of employees; centralization of
labor relations and collective bargaining. One
case will emphasize one or more factors, the next
will place more importance upon other factors,
and what is emphasized in one may be de-
emphasized or distinguished in another. Harmon-
izing the cases into a uniform pattern is not
wholly feasible, because of the factual nature of
the determination, the broad discretion in the
agency [the Board] in making one of several
acceptable choices, and the limited scope of
correctly applied judicial review.
Considering these factors, we believe that the
purposes of the Act will best be effectuated by our
directing an election among all of the Employer's
unrepresented employees in a residual unit.3 As we
have traditionally included all of the unrepresented
employees in the residual unit, we shall include in the
unit those employees located at the Chico, Texas,
maintenance shop, the Loveland, Texas, mainte-
nance shop, and the South Bend, Indiana, terminal.
In accordance with these findings, we conclude
that the following unit is appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All unrepresented classified employees of the
Employer employed in the Operations Division of
the Natural Gas Liquids Group including em-
ployees employed at the Chico, Texas, mainte-
nance shop, the Loveland, Texas, maintenance
shop, and the South Bend, Indiana, terminal,
excluding all other employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
2 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v N L R B, 411 record, exhibits, briefs, and the Employer' s motion and hereby deny the
F 2d 356, 358 (C A 7, 1969) request because the record, pleadings , and briefs adequately present the
3 The Employer, by motion filed September 13, 1972, has requested oral issues and positions of the parties
argument on the issues involved herein We have considered only the